- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
State Legal Service Authority does not have authority to control & monitor amount of compensation disbursed to victim: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act has no authority to control and monitor the amount of compensation disbursed to a victim who has attained majority.The SLSA directed the petitioner who was a victim of human trafficking, to deposit 75% of the awarded amount with a nationalized bank in a...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act has no authority to control and monitor the amount of compensation disbursed to a victim who has attained majority.
The SLSA directed the petitioner who was a victim of human trafficking, to deposit 75% of the awarded amount with a nationalized bank in a Monthly Income Scheme in the name of the victim for a period of 10 years, with auto renewal option, and to submit a compliance of the same within 40 days from the date of receipt of the victim compensation.
Acting upon a plea, a single judge bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya said that, “She or he has every right and the liberty to choose the mode of expending the compensation amount, as she/he feels appropriate for her rehabilitation after the trauma of the offence.”
The Justice also observed that a method of dictating expenditure and savings is counterproductive to the scheme of Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and would be an illegal fetter on the personal liberty of the victim.