Court to Examine Uniform Compensation for Hate Crime Victims Across India
Plea Argues the Current System Is Inconsistent, Arbitrary, Unconstitutional
April 20, 2025
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a significant case on April 23 that concerns the treatment of victims of hate crimes and mob lynching in India. The case argues that the current system for compensating such victims is inconsistent, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The petition, filed by the Indian Muslim for Progress and Reforms, demands for a standardised, nationwide compensation policy that treats all victims of hate crime equally, regardless of their religious or social background, according to PTI.
A two-judge bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih, will consider whether states and Union Territories have acted on the Supreme Court’s 2018 Tehseen Poonawala judgment, which had laid down preventive and remedial measures to tackle mob violence and hate crimes. It included specific directions to set up compensation schemes for victims.
In April 2023, the Court followed up by ordering all states and the Union government to submit affidavits outlining what steps they had taken to comply. The upcoming hearing is expected to examine these affidavits to assess whether meaningful progress has been made—or if the implementation has remained largely symbolic or selective.
The petitioners argue that the relief being granted to victims so far is based on arbitrary factors, such as the extent of media attention the case receives, the political climate at the time, or the religious identity of the victim. This, they say, is not only unjust but unconstitutional, as it violates three key provisions of the Indian Constitution: Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law; Article 15, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth; and Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
According to the petition, allowing compensation to be influenced by such variables undermines the rule of law and erodes public trust in the justice system.
The standard should ensure that relief is “just, fair and reasonable”—a phrase that draws on established legal principles concerning state responsibility and the rights of citizens affected by violence or abuse of power.
A hate crime is a criminal act committed against a person or group that is motivated, wholly or partly, by prejudice or hostility towards their identity—such as religion, caste, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other protected characteristics. Unlike ordinary crimes, hate crimes are distinguished by the intent to target victims not for what they did but for who they are, sending a broader message of intimidation to the entire community that shares the victim’s identity.
Such crimes often involve violence, threats, or property damage, and their social impact extends beyond the immediate victim, fostering fear and division in society.
In India, some of the most common hate crimes include mob lynching, targeted communal violence, caste-based atrocities and attacks on individuals accused of religious conversion or consuming beef. Mob lynchings often occur on allegations of cow slaughter or theft, and disproportionately affect Muslims and Dalits.
Caste-based violence, especially against Dalits and Adivasis, includes assault, social boycotts, sexual violence, and denial of access to public resources like water or education. Hate crimes also take the form of attacks on Christians accused of forced conversions, often during prayer meetings or church gatherings.
In recent years, online hate speech and incitement have further fuelled real-world violence, especially during periods of communal or political tension. These acts are typically driven by identity-based prejudice and often go underreported or inadequately investigated, leading to a sense of impunity.
