Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7333  OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.12721/2009]

State of Rajasthan & Ors. … Appellants

Vs.

Sanyam Lodha … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R.V. RAVEENDRAN J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises from a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in a  

public interest litigation filed by a Legislator and social activist complaining  

of  arbitrary  and  discriminatory  disbursement  of  relief  under  the  Chief  

Minister’s Relief Fund (for short ‘Relief fund’) under the Rajasthan Chief

Minister’s Relief Fund Rules, 1999 (for short, ‘the Relief Fund Rules’). The  

respondent  alleged that  during the  period January 2004 to August,  2005,  

challans/chargesheets were filed in 392 cases relating to rape of minor girls;  

that out of them, 377 minor girls, did not get any relief or assistance from  

the Relief Fund, 13 were granted relief ranging from Rs.10,000 to 50,000,  

one victim (minor ‘K’)  was given Rs.3,95,000 on 11.8.2004 and another  

victim (minor ‘S’) was given Rs.5,00,000 on 25.6.2005.   

3. The  appellant  submitted  that  minor  girls,  that  too  victims  of  rape,  

belong to a weak and vulnerable group who are seldom in a position to seek  

relief  personally;  and  that  if  the  Chief  Minister  was  of  the  view  that  

monetary relief should be granted to such victims of heinous and depraved  

crimes,  all  similar  victims  of  rape  should  be  given  monetary  relief.  

According  to  him if  there  were  392  victims of  rape,  they  should  all  be  

similarly treated and if some are given relief, others also should be given  

similar  relief.  It  is  contended  that  when  discretion  vested  in  the  Chief  

Minister  in respect  of the Relief  Fund is  exercised in a manner that 377  

victims are  ignored  and 13 are  paid  amounts  varying  from Rs.10,000 to  

50,000 and two victims alone are paid Rs.3,95,000 and Rs.5,00,000, it leads  

to inferences of arbitrariness and discrimination.  

2

4. The  appellant  does  not  have  any  grievance  about  payment  of  

Rs.5,00,000 or Rs.3,95,000 to two of the victims. It is also not his complaint  

that the said two victims were undeserving. His grievance is the other way  

around. According to him if two of the victims were paid relief amounts in  

the range of Rs.3,95,000 and Rs.5,00,000, there was no justification for not  

paying  any  amount  to  377  victims,  or  for  paying  amounts  which  were  

comparatively very small (that is Rs.10,000 to 50,000) in the case of thirteen  

victims. He contended that like other governmental resources or funds, the  

distribution or monetary relief under the Relief Fund should be equitable,  

non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary. He submitted that paying very high  

amounts in only one or two cases merely because of media focus on those  

cases  or  because  the  case  had  become  caste-sensitive  or  because  it  was  

politically  expedient,  while  ignoring  other  similar  cases,  was  neither  

warranted nor justified. He also contended that disbursement of monetary  

relief to the victims cannot be in the absolute discretion or according to the  

whims and fancies of the Chief Minister and grant of monetary relief under  

the Relief Fund should not become distribution of government largesse to a  

favoured few. The respondent therefore filed a writ petition (impleading the  

appellants, namely the State of Rajasthan, Home Ministry of the State and  

3

Secretary to the Chief Minister, as the respondents), seeking the following  

reliefs :      

(i) a direction to the appellants to give to all rape victims, who had not  been granted any monetary relief or who had been granted a negligibly small  relief, monetary relief of Rs.5 lakhs as in the case of ‘minor K’;

(ii) for a declaration that failure to give monetary relief, or failure to give  a  uniform monetary  help,  to  all  victims of  rape from the Relief  Fund is  illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; and

(iii)   for deprecation of the misuse or  discriminatory utilization of  the  Chief Minister’s Relief Fund with a direction to the Chief Minister to adopt  a fair and non discriminatory policy in regard to disbursement of amounts  from  the  Relief  Fund  to  similarly  situated  persons,  in  particular  minor  victims of rape.

5. The appellants resisted the writ petition contending that disbursement  

of funds from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund is in implementation of the  

policy of the state government to place at the disposal of the Chief Minister  

of  the  State,  some funds  for  granting  relief  to  the  needy  and deserving,  

including  victims  of  calamities,  disasters  and  traumatic  incidents.  It  was  

submitted that the discretion has been vested with the Chief Minister who is  

the highest executive functionary in the State, to ensure proper utilization of  

the fund, that vesting of such discretion to grant some relief to victims of  

disasters, accidents and gruesome incidents, could not be subjected to any  

rigid guidelines, and that the discretion and power to grant relief from the  

said fund is exercised by the Chief Minister in appropriate and deserving  

4

cases in public interest. It is contended that exercise of discretion in granting  

monetary benefit under such a Relief Fund by a high functionary cannot be  

subjected to principles of equality and non discrimination.  

6. The High Court allowed the writ petition by order dated 18.12.2007. It  

was of the view that all minor victims of rape required to be treated equally  

for the  purpose of grant  of  relief  by the Chief  Minister  under the Relief  

Fund. Consequently, the Division Bench directed that Rule 5 of the Relief  

Fund Rules 1999 should be read (prospectively) as under :  

“This fund shall be under Hon’ble the Chief Minister so that he/she may  utilize the fund equally and without discrimination for grant of financial  help.”

The said order is challenged by the appellants in this appeal by special leave.  

On the contentions urged in this appeal, the following questions arise for  

consideration :

(i) Whether the High Court could have substituted Rule 5 of the Relief  Fund Rules?

(ii) Whether the court was justified in holding that all victims should be  “treated  equally”  while  granting  relief  under  the  Chief  Minister’s  Relief Fund.  

(iii) Whether  a  rule  could  be  interfered  merely  on  the  ground  it  vests  unguided discretion?                

5

The Rules relating to Chief Minister’s Relief Fund

7. The  Chief  Minister’s  Relief  Fund  was  originally  constituted  in  

October 1968. Subsequently the fund was governed by the Rajasthan Chief  

Minister’s  Famine  and  Relief  Fund  Rules  1979  (for  short  ‘Relief  Fund  

Rules’).  Subsequently  by  merging  six  different  funds,  namely  Chief  

Minister’s  Famine  &  Flood  Relief  Fund,  Hospital  Development  Fund,  

General  Assistance  Fund,  Security  Service  Welfare  Fund,  Child  Welfare  

Fund and Development Fund, the Governor constituted a single fund known  

as  ‘Rajasthan  Chief  Minister’s  Relief  Fund’  governed  by  the  Rajasthan  

Chief Minister’s Relief Fund Rules, 1999.  

7.1) Rule 4 provides that the annual income (by way of interest) from the  

said fund should be spent for the following purposes: (i) Famine, flood and  

accident relief (ii) hospital development and medical assistance; (iii) general  

assistance; (iv) security services welfare assistance, (v) child welfare relief  

and (vi) development of the state, in the proportion of 50%, 25%, 10%, 5%,  

5% and 5% respectively.  

7.2) Rule  5 of  the  Relief  Fund Rules  reads  thus:  “This  fund would be  

under  the  control  of  Hon’ble  Chief  Minister  and  he  would  be  able  to  

6

sanction financial assistance upto any limit in any manner from this fund.”  

This rules has been substituted by a differently worded rule, by the High  

Court (extracted above).  

7.3) Rule 4 and the note under Rule 5 provide that the provisions of Rules  

4 and 5 were only norms and shall not be considered as barriers for exercise  

of discretion by the Chief Minister and reiterate that only the interest earned  

on the fund should be spent every year.

7.4) Rule 7 provides  that  the  Secretary to the Chief  Minister  would be  

authorized,  under  the  overall  control  and  superintendence  of  the  Chief  

Secretary,  for the functioning,  capital  investment  and for drawing money  

from accounts of the fund. Rule 8 provides that the accounts of the fund will  

be maintained in the Chief  Minister’s  office  and audited by the Auditor,  

Local  Fund Audit  Department.  Rule  10 provides  that  the  Chief  Minister  

would have the right to relax the current provisions of the fund and sanction  

assistance. Rule 11 provides that the rules could be amended by the consent  

of the Chief Minister if so required.  

7

Re: Question (i)

8. The appellants contend that Rule 5 of the Relief Fund Rules were not  

under challenge in the writ petition and the High Court was not called upon  

to consider the validity of the said Rule; and that therefore the High Court  

was  not  justified  in  substituting  Rule  (5)  with  a  new  rule,  by  virtually  

exercising legislative functions.  

9. Rule (5) which has been modified by the High Court in its final order,  

as noticed above is a part of Rajasthan Chief Minister Relief Fund Rules,  

1999.  The  Relief  Fund  Rules  is  not  a  delegated  legislation.  Though  

described as ‘Rules’, the Relief Fund Rules are norms/guidelines issued in  

exercise  of  the  executive  power  of  the  State  under  Article  162  of  the  

Constitution of India. The Relief Fund rules were not under challenge in the  

writ petition. In fact there was not even a reference to the Relief Fund Rules  

in the writ petition. All that the PIL petitioner (respondent herein) wanted  

was that all victims of a particular category should be treated equally and  

that if some monetary relief was granted from Chief Minister’s Relief Fund,  

to some victims belonging to a particular category, similar relief should be  

granted to all  victims in that  category.  As there was no challenge to the  

Relief Fund Rules, the State was not called upon to satisfy the High Court  

8

about the validity of the Relief Fund Rules. Similar Rules are in force in  

almost all the States in India.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the High Court  

has not declared Rule (5) to be invalid, but has merely read it down, to save  

it  from  being  declared  as  unconstitutional  and  such  reading  down  is  

permissible in law. It is true that any provision of an enactment can be read  

down so as to erase the obnoxious or unconstitutional element in it or to  

bring it in conformity with the object of such enactment. Similarly a rule  

forming part of executive instructions can also be read down to save it from  

invalidity  or  to  bring  it  in  conformity  with  the  avowed  policy  of  the  

government.  When courts  find  a  rule  to  be  defective  or  violative  of  the  

constitutional  or  statutory provision,  they tend to save the rule,  wherever  

possible and practical,  by reading it down by a benevolent interpretation,  

rather than declare it as unconstitutional or invalid. But such an occasion did  

not arise in this case as there was no challenge to the validity of Rule 5 and  

the parties were not at issue on the validity of the said rule.  

11. We are therefore of the view that in the absence of any challenge to  

the Relief Fund Rules and an opportunity to the state government to defend  

9

the validity of Rule 5, the High Court ought not to have modified or read  

down the said Rule.  

Re : Question No. (ii)  

12. We may  next  consider  whether  there  was  any justification  for  the  

decision of the High Court amending Rule 5. The High Court held that out  

of 392 cases of rape where challans were filed between January 2004 to 25th  

July, 2005 relief had been given to only 15 victims and other 377 were not  

given any relief. Even among the 15 who were given relief, 13 were given  

relief  in  the  range  of  Rs.10,000  to  Rs.50,000  and  in  two  cases  

disproportionately high amounts, that is Rs.5 lakhs in one case and Rs.3.95  

lakhs in the other, were awarded. According to the High Court, all victims  

under twelve years of age are to be treated equally. The High Court held that  

section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (‘Code’ for short) provided for  

the same punishment in regard to all rapes where the victim is under twelve  

years of age, irrespective of the age of the victim. It therefore held that when  

the Penal Code did not make any distinction in regard to victims of rape  

under  twelve years,  there  can be  no discrimination in  granting monetary  

relief to such victims. Consequently, it directed the monetary relief from the  

Chief Minister’s Relief Fund to be utilized equally to benefit the victims of  

10

rape, without any discrimination. The illustrative comparison with reference  

to section 376(2)(5) of the Code, by the High Court, to hold that all victims  

of rape should be treated equally and identically in granting monetary relief,  

is inappropriate and made on an assumption which has no basis, by adopting  

a logic which is defective.

13. The provisions relating to punishment for offences under criminal law  

have no bearing upon grant of ex-gratia monetary benefit  to some of the  

victims. Secondly, the assumption that all cases of rape involving victims  

under twelve years are liable to be punished identically under the Code, is  

not correct. Section 376(2)(f) no doubt refers to rape of girl/child under the  

age of twelve years as one category, for award of a more severe punishment,  

but does not provide for a fixed quantum of punishment. The said section  

provides that a person who commits rape on a woman when she is under  

twelve years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term  

which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall  

also be liable for fine. The term of ten years imprisonment mentioned in  

section 376(2) is the minimum punishment in regard to cases falling under  

section 376(2)(f). The gravity and perversity of the crime, the need to keep  

the perpetrator out of circulation, the social impact, chances of correcting the  

11

offender, among other facts and circumstances, will have a bearing upon the  

sentence. The sentence may vary for any period between life and ten years.  

The  amount  of  fine  may  also  vary  depending  upon  the  aforesaid  

circumstances and in addition, the financial position of the victim and the  

offender. Section 376 gives discretion to the Court in regard to imposition of  

sentence,  depending  upon  the  facts  of  each  case,  so  long  as  the  limits  

prescribed are not breached. Therefore the assumption that no distinction is  

made in regard to either punishment  under the Code where the victim is  

under twelve years of age, and therefore, all such victims should get an equal  

amount as monetary relief, is erroneous.  

14. Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short)  

provides for a direction to pay compensation to the victim, from out of the  

fine. It does not provide that the compensation awarded should be a uniform  

fixed  amount.  Section  357A  of  Cr.P.C.  (introduced  with  effect  from  

31.12.2009)  requires  every  state  government  in  co-ordination  with  the  

central government, to prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose  

of payment of compensation to the victims who require rehabilitation (or  

who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime). This section also  

does not provide that the compensation should be an identical amount. The  

12

victim may also sue the offender for compensation in a civil proceedings.  

There also the quantum may depend upon the facts of each case. Therefore  

the inference that the monetary relief awarded under the Relief Fund should  

be identical for all victims of rape under the age of twelve years, is illogical  

and cannot be accepted.  

15. Having  regard  to  the  scheme  of  the  Relief  Fund Rules,  grant  and  

disbursal  of relief  amount under the said Relief Fund Rules is  purely  ex  

gratia, at the discretion of the Chief Minister. The Relief Fund Rules do not  

create any right in any victim to demand or claim monetary relief under the  

fund. Nor do the Rules provide any scheme for grant of compensation to  

victims of  rape or  other  unfortunate  circumstances.  Having regard to  the  

nature and scheme of the Relief Fund and the purposes for which the Relief  

Fund is intended, it may not be possible to provide relief from the Relief  

Fund, for all the affected persons of a particular category. Monetary relief  

under  the  Relief  Fund Rules  may be granted or  restricted  in  exceptional  

cases where the victims of offences, have been subjected to shocking trauma  

and  cruelty.  Naturally  any  public  outcry  or  media  focus  may  lead  to  

identifying or choosing the victim, for the purpose of grant of relief. Other  

victims  who  are  not  chosen  will  have  to  take  recourse  to  the  ordinary  

13

remedies available in law. It is not possible to hold that if one victim of a  

particular  category  is  given  a  particular  monetary  relief  under  the  Relief  

Fund Rules, every victim in that category should be granted relief or that all  

victims should be granted identical relief.

16. The need to treat equally and the need to avoid discrimination arise  

where the claimants/beneficiaries have a legal right to claim relief and the  

government or authority has a corresponding legal obligation.  But that is  

also subject to the principles relating to reasonable classification. But where  

the payment is ex-gratia, by way of discretionary relief, grant of relief may  

depend upon several circumstances. The authority vested with the discretion  

may take note of any of the several relevant factors, including the age of the  

victim,  the  shocking  or  gruesome  nature  of  the  incident  or  accident  or  

calamity, the serious nature of the injury or resultant trauma, the need for  

immediate  relief,  the  precarious  financial  condition  of  the  family,  the  

expenditure for any treatment and rehabilitation, for the purpose of extension  

of monetary relief. The availability of sufficient funds, the need to allocate  

the fund for other purposes may also play a relevant role. The authority at  

his  discretion,  may or  may not  grant  any relief  at  all  under  Relief  Fund  

Rules, depending upon the facts and circumstance of the case.  

14

Re : Question No.(iii)

17. The Chief Minister is the head of the State Government, though the  

executive power of the State is vested in the Governor. He is in-charge of the  

day to day functioning of the State Government. He virtually controls the  

State  executive  and legislature.   When calamities,  disasters,  heinous  and  

dastardly  crimes  occur,  and  there  is  need  to  immediately  respond  by  

providing relief, regular governmental machinery may be found to slow and  

wanting,  as  they  are  bound  down  by  rules,  regulations  and  procedures.  

Special circumstances may warrant emergent financial assistance. It is also  

possible that the existing laws may not provide for grant of relief in some  

circumstances  to  needy  victims.  It  is  in  such  circumstances,  the  Chief  

Minister’s Relief Fund is necessary and useful. Where power is vested in  

holders of high office like the Chief Minister to give monetary relief from  

such a Relief Fund, it is no doubt a power coupled with duty. Nevertheless,  

the authority will have the discretion to decide, where the Relief Fund Rules  

do not contain any specific guidelines, to whom relief should be extended, in  

what  circumstances  it  should  be  extended  and  what  amount  should  be  

granted by way of relief.  

15

18. All functionaries of the State are expected to act in accordance with  

law,  eschewing  unreasonableness,  arbitrariness  or  discrimination.  They  

cannot act on whims and fancies. In a democracy governed by the rule of  

law, no government or authority has the right to do what it pleases. Where  

the  rule  of  law  prevails  there  is  nothing  like  unfettered  discretion  or  

unaccountable  action.  But  this  does  not  mean  that  no  discretion  can  be  

vested in an authority or functionary of high standing. Nor does it mean that  

certain  funds  cannot  be  placed  at  the  disposal  of  a  high  functionary  for  

disbursal  at  his  discretion  in  unforeseen  circumstances.  For  example,  we  

may  refer  to  the  extreme case  of  secret  funds  placed  at  the  disposal  of  

intelligence organizations and security organizations (to be operated by very  

senior officers) intended to be used in national interest and national security  

or crime detection relating to serious offences, either to buy information or  

to mount clandestine operations.  Such funds should not be confused with  

slush funds kept  for  dishonest  purposes.  The expenditure/disbursals  from  

such  secret  funds  are  not  subjected  to  normal  audits  nor  required  to  be  

accounted for in the traditional manner. Another example is the Relief Funds  

placed at the disposal of the holders of high office like Prime Minister or  

Chief Ministers of States to provide timely assistance to victims of natural  

calamities,  disasters,  and traumatic  experiences,  or  to provide  medical  or  

16

financial aid to persons in distress and needy, among other purposes. These  

Relief Funds are different from secret funds. The inflow into the Relief Fund  

and  the  disbursals  therefrom  are  fully  accounted.  The  Relief  Funds  are  

regularly  audited.  The  purposes  for  which  such  Relief  Funds  could  be  

utilized are clearly laid down, subject to the residuary discretion vested in  

the  Prime  Minister/Chief  Minister  to  grant  relief  in  unforeseen  

circumstances. The Prime Minister/ Chief Minister is given the discretion to  

choose the recipient of the relief, the quantum of the relief, and the timing of  

grant  of  such  relief.  Unless  such  discretion  is  given,  in  extraordinary  

circumstances  not  contemplated in the guidelines,  the  Relief  Fund in  the  

hands  of  the  Chief  Minister  may  be  useless  and  meaningless.  When  

discretion is vested in a high public functionary, it is assumed that the power  

will be exercised by applying reasonable standards to achieve the purpose  

for which the discretion is vested.

19. A Constitution Bench of this Court in B.P. Singhal v. Union of India  

(2010)  6  SCC  331  while  explaining  the  nature  of  judicial  review  of  

discretionary  functions  of  persons  holding  high  offices  held  that  such  

authority entrusted with the discretion need not disclose or inform the cause  

for exercise of the discretion, but it is imperative that some cause must exist,  

17

as otherwise the authority entrusted with the discretion may act arbitrarily,  

whimsically or mala fide. Elucidating the said principle this Court observed:

“The extent and depth of judicial review will depend upon and vary with  reference to the matter under review. As observed by Lord Steyn in  Ex  parte  Daly [2001 (3)  All  ER 433],  in  law,  context  is  everything,  and  intensity  of  review  will  depend  on  the  subject-matter  of  review.  For  example, judicial review is permissible in regard to administrative action,  legislations  and constitutional  amendments.  But  the  extent  or  scope  of  judicial review for one will be different from the scope of judicial review  for other. Mala fides may be a ground for judicial review of administrative  action  but  is  not  a  ground  for  judicial  review  of  legislations  or  constitutional amendments.”

20. Whenever the discretion is exercised for making a payment from out  

of the Relief Fund, the Court will assume that it was done in public interest  

and for public good, for just and proper reasons. Consequently where anyone  

challenges the exercise of the discretion, he should establish prima facie that  

the exercise of discretion was arbitrary, mala fide or by way of nepotism to  

favour undeserving candidates with ulterior motives.  Where such a prima  

facie  case  is  made  out,  the  Court  may  require  the  authority  to  produce  

material to satisfy itself that the discretion has been used for good and valid  

reasons,  depending upon the  facts  and circumstances  of  the  case.  But  in  

general, the discretion will not be open to question.

18

21. The Relief Fund Rules does not confer absolute unguided discretion  

on the Chief Minister. Rule 4 as noticed above, enumerates the six major  

heads  of  purpose  for  which  the  relief  amount  from  the  fund  could  be  

sanctioned, namely, (i) persons affected by natural calamities and disasters  

like  famine,  flood  and  accidents,  (ii)  hospital  development  and  medical  

assistance,  (iii)  general  assistance  (social  unity,  education,  sports,  youth  

creativity, etc.),  (iv) benefits to ex-servicemen, (v) child welfare, and (vi)  

development of Rajasthan. Each of the six purposes is further divided into  

detailed sub-heads. There are thus detailed guidelines as to the purposes for  

which the Relief Fund is to be used. There are checks and balances in regard  

to the expenditure/withdrawals from the said fund as the fund is subject to  

audit by the auditor of the local fund audit department. In addition to the  

above, Rule 5 vests a residuary discretionary power upon the Chief Minister  

to sanction financial assistance from the Relief Fund, upto any limit in any  

matter to anyone. This is because it is not possible to foresee every possible  

situation  or  contingency  where  relief  should  be  or  could  be  given.  The  

discretion under Rule 5 is intended to be exercised in rare and extraordinary  

circumstances.  

19

Conclusion

22. As the Relief Fund is expected to be utilized for various purposes, it  

may not be proper or advisable to grant huge amounts in one or two cases,  

thereby denying the benefit of the Fund to other needy persons who are also  

the  victims  of  catastrophes.  The  amount  granted  should  therefore  be  

reasonable,  to  meet  the  immediate  need  of  coming  out  of  the  

trauma/catastrophe.  When there are no guidelines or when it is difficult to  

limit the discretion in a high functionary by guidelines, the authority should  

be careful in exercising discretionary power, so to ensure that it does not  

give room for nepotism, favoritism or discrimination. Obviously the relief  

amount from the Fund cannot be given to persons who are not the victims of  

any  disaster  or  catastrophe  or  adverse  circumstances  or  who  do not  fall  

under  any  of  the  categories  specified  in  the  Relief  Fund  Rules.  Relief  

amount cannot be granted, merely because the recipient happens to be the  

friend, supporter of the Chief Minister or belongs to his political party. The  

disbursement or payment to undeserving cases can be questioned. But the  

mere  fact  that  in  two  cases  of  rape  involving  extreme  viciousness  and  

depravity, high compensation has been granted having regard to the gravity  

of the offence and the surrounding circumstances, is by itself not sufficient  

to interfere with the discretion of the Chief Minister.

20

23. In this case the grievance of the respondent is that in the case of one  

rape victim a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was awarded from the Chief  Minister’s  

Fund, for another victim Rs.3.95 lakhs was awarded whereas in several other  

cases hardly Rs.10,000 to Rs.15,000 were awarded and in several other cases  

nothing was awarded. The Chief Minister’s Relief Fund is not a scheme for  

the benefit of victims of rape. There are other schemes and other provisions  

for granting of compensation to such victims. As noticed above, the Chief  

Minister’s  Relief  Fund is  intended to provide relief  to victims of various  

calamities/disasters/accidents/incidents  and serve other  specified purposes.  

The appellants have pointed out that Rs.5 lakhs was awarded in a shocking  

case  where  victim was only  a  few months  old.  In  the  other  case  where  

Rs.3.95  lakhs  was  awarded  as  the  victim required  rehabilitation  and  the  

family of the victim was in dire circumstances. These two payments from  

the Relief Fund, cannot form the basis for issuing a direction to pay similar  

amounts to other victims of rape. Nor is it possible to hold that failure to  

give uniform ex-gratia relief is arbitrary or unconstitutional.  

24.  We may however note that the six specified purposes and their sub-

heads  enumerated  in  the  Relief  Fund  Rules  for  grant  of  relief  do  not  

specifically include victims of ghastly/heinous crimes. It may be appropriate  

21

to include a sub-category relating to such victims under category (i) or (iii)  

of Rule (4) of the Relief Fund Rules. Be that as it may.  

25. We therefore allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the  

High Court and dismiss the PIL filed by the respondent in the High Court,  

subject to the above observations.

……………………….J. (R. V. Raveendran)

……………………….J. (A.K. Patnaik)

New Delhi; August  25, 2011

22