Embedded Files
Can the High Court Direct the State to Frame a Compensation Scheme Under Article 226?
Can the High Court Direct the State to Frame a Compensation Scheme Under Article 226?
Why This Case Matters:
Why This Case Matters:
This judgment clarifies that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot compel the State to enact a law or formulate a scheme. However, it may leave it open to the Government to consider appropriate measures, including framing a scheme and granting adequate compensation in deserving cases.
This judgment clarifies that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot compel the State to enact a law or formulate a scheme. However, it may leave it open to the Government to consider appropriate measures, including framing a scheme and granting adequate compensation in deserving cases.
Background:
Background:
The petitioner, whose husband was allegedly killed in a mob lynching incident in 2016, approached the High Court seeking formulation of a rehabilitation scheme under Section 357A of CrPC, compassionate appointment, and enhancement of compensation. She contended that she had received only ₹2 lakh as compensation for the death of her husband and sought further relief for herself and her family.
The petitioner, whose husband was allegedly killed in a mob lynching incident in 2016, approached the High Court seeking formulation of a rehabilitation scheme under Section 357A of CrPC, compassionate appointment, and enhancement of compensation. She contended that she had received only ₹2 lakh as compensation for the death of her husband and sought further relief for herself and her family.
Court's View:
Court's View:
The High Court observed that compassionate appointment can be granted only in accordance with an existing statutory or governmental scheme, and in the absence of such a scheme, no direction for appointment could be issued. The Court further observed that mob lynching must be dealt with very sternly and that the families of deceased victims should receive stability. However, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court cannot direct the State to make a law or formulate a scheme. It nevertheless left it open to the State to consider providing adequate compensation to the families of victims of mob lynching and, if possible, to frame an appropriate scheme.
The High Court observed that compassionate appointment can be granted only in accordance with an existing statutory or governmental scheme, and in the absence of such a scheme, no direction for appointment could be issued. The Court further observed that mob lynching must be dealt with very sternly and that the families of deceased victims should receive stability. However, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court cannot direct the State to make a law or formulate a scheme. It nevertheless left it open to the State to consider providing adequate compensation to the families of victims of mob lynching and, if possible, to frame an appropriate scheme.
Decision:
Decision:
The Jharkhand High Court declined to issue a mandamus directing the State to frame a scheme or grant compassionate appointment. However, it directed the State to consider the issue of adequate compensation for the families of victims of mob lynching and left it open to the Government to consider enhancement of the petitioner's compensation. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
Key Legal Takeaway:
Key Legal Takeaway:
While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot compel the State to enact a law or formulate a scheme. However, it may call upon the State to consider appropriate measures, including enhancement of compensation, where the facts of the case so warrant.
While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot compel the State to enact a law or formulate a scheme. However, it may call upon the State to consider appropriate measures, including enhancement of compensation, where the facts of the case so warrant.
Case Details:
Case Details:
Saira Bibi @ Saura Bibi Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. ; W.P.(C) No. 6121 of 2018 ; 29.07.2026
Saira Bibi @ Saura Bibi Vs State of Jharkhand & Ors. ; W.P.(C) No. 6121 of 2018 ; 29.07.2026
Page updated
Report abuse