Allahabad High Court: Statewide SC/ST Act Relief Probe Ordered

• The Allahabad High Court has ordered a statewide probe in Uttar Pradesh into the claiming and disbursement of financial relief under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
• The inquiry specifically targets potential misuse, including repeated claims by individuals or families, and aims to strengthen district-level oversight and verification processes.
• The court clarified that special judges, under Rule 12(7) of the 1995 Rules, possess active judicial scrutiny powers to ensure timely and sufficient compensation for victims.
• This directive arose from appeals where victims were denied the full balance of their entitled relief, highlighting administrative shortcomings in disbursing funds.
• The probe was partly prompted by revelations that an advocate and his family had received over Rs 23 lakh in aggregate relief across multiple cases, though the court cautioned against presuming misuse solely based on repeated claims.

The court emphasized that special judges are not passive recipients of administrative reports but are empowered to conduct active judicial scrutiny, ensuring that victims receive timely and sufficient compensation as mandated by law.

The Allahabad High Court has mandated a comprehensive, statewide investigation across Uttar Pradesh into the processes of claiming and disbursing financial relief under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This directive aims to establish robust regulatory and supervisory mechanisms within every district to prevent potential misuse of the scheme. The court specifically highlighted the need to scrutinize instances of repeated claims made by the same individuals or their family members and to ensure that adequate verification and scrutiny are conducted before public funds are released, with corrective actions to be implemented where misuse is identified.

This significant ruling, delivered by Justice Santosh Rai on September 7, 2026, arose from two criminal appeals originating in Jhansi. These appeals contested orders issued by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi, on July 23, 2024, which had rejected applications for the remaining financial relief due to victims. In one prominent case, Arvind Kumar and two others sought the balance of Rs 75,000 per victim, while in a related appeal, Santosh Kumar Dohrey pursued the release of outstanding relief in a separate criminal matter. The investigating officers had initially proposed Rs 2 lakh in relief for each victim, as per Item 41 of the Schedule to Rule 12(4) of the 1995 Rules, which stipulates payment in stages: 25% at the FIR stage, 50% upon filing of the charge sheet, and the final 25% after conviction. Consequently, 75% of the proposed amount, or Rs 1.5 lakh, became payable after the charge sheet was filed. However, the District Social Welfare Officer disbursed only Rs 75,000 per victim, representing 37.5% of the proposed relief, leading to the applications for the balance after initial representations were ignored.

In its judgment, the Allahabad High Court critically assessed the Special Judge's previous stance, determining that the lower court had operated on an "erroneous premise" by concluding it lacked the authority to ascertain the nature of the offense or the appropriate quantum of assistance. The High Court clarified that Rule 12(7) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995, explicitly empowers special courts to examine whether financial relief has been disbursed promptly, whether the amount is sufficient, and if only a partial payment has been made. Should a shortfall be identified, the special court is authorized to direct the payment of the remaining balance.

The court emphasized that special judges are not passive recipients of administrative reports but are empowered to conduct active judicial scrutiny, ensuring that victims receive timely and sufficient compensation as mandated by law. This provision, the High Court noted, serves as a crucial judicial check against under-payment, delayed disbursement, or arbitrary curtailment of statutory relief by administrative authorities, reinforcing the judiciary's role in upholding the rights of victims under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act financial relief framework.

The impetus for this broad-based inquiry into Uttar Pradesh SC/ST Act claims scrutiny was partly fueled by information provided by the State during the proceedings. It was revealed that Santosh Kumar Dohrey, an advocate involved in one of the appeals, along with his family members, had collectively received an aggregate sum of Rs 23,36,250 in relief and financial assistance under the 1995 Rules and related schemes across various criminal cases. Furthermore, approximately 10 to 12 criminal cases initiated by Dohrey or his family were reportedly pending before the District Level Committee for further relief.

While these revelations contributed to the court's decision to order a comprehensive Allahabad High Court victim compensation probe, the High Court also issued a cautionary note. It explicitly stated that the mere occurrence of repeated criminal cases followed by claims for relief, without additional corroborating evidence, does not inherently establish misuse of SC/ST Act funds India. This nuanced approach underscores the court's intention to ensure a thorough and fair investigation, balancing the need to prevent fraud with the imperative to protect genuine victims and ensure proper disbursement of entitled relief.

Lawyers advising on SC/ST Act claims or representing clients in such cases must be aware of the Allahabad High Court's directive for a statewide probe into relief claim misuse, particularly regarding repeated claims and verification processes. This signals increased scrutiny and potential for stricter enforcement, while also clarifying the special judge's power to ensure proper disbursement under Rule 12(7).

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets