India registered an average of 51 first information reports (FIRs) per hour for crimes against women in 2022, according to the latest official crime statistics report published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). The report recorded around 1.14 lakh cases involving sexual violence against women. Yet data from the National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) counts just 16,552 compensation applications from women survivors of sexual offences during the same time period. This comes up to fewer than one in seven cases, highlighting how few survivors of sexual violence in India reach the stage of seeking compensation, let alone receiving it. The disparity is at the centre of a new report by the South Asian Movement for Accessing Justice (SAMAJ), “Good Practices on Compensation For Victims/Survivors of Sexual Violence in South Asia, 2026,” which examines how compensation frameworks operate for survivors of sexual violence across South Asia. The report finds that despite significant legal reforms, victims continue to face multiple barriers in their pursuit of justice. This grim reality unveils a bigger question: what does compensation for survivors of sexual violence mean in the justice ecosystem? Monetary compensation Women who experience both gendered and identity-based violence – such as Dalit women, Adivasi women, indigenous women, those from minority faith or language communities and women and girls with disabilities – face compounding barriers at every stage of the legal process. These intersecting forms of marginalisation can restrict access to justice at every step. According to the report, within this context, monetary compensation for the victims represents “societal acknowledgement of harm, state accountability and an opportunity for survivors to rebuild their lives with dignity.”The report identifies India as a potential good practice model for implementing a compensation scheme; however, survivors’ substantive access remains highly constrained and uneven. In India, monetary compensation for survivors refers to a state-recognised financial payment to acknowledge harm and support recovery, and, by extension, to the formal or legal recognition of the harm endured by the victims. Why is access to compensation delayed for victims in India?In November 2024, in the case of Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh v State of Maharashtra & Anr, involving the appeal of a man convicted of raping a girl child, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the lower court had failed to grant compensation to the victim. “The Supreme Court directed sessions courts34 nationwide to order interim and/or final victim compensation (under Section 357-A of the Criminal Procedure/ victim compensation schemes, including Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) 35) at the time of passing judgment in cases involving sexual offences of women and minors, whether convicting or acquitting the accused,” the report said. The case underscored judicial recognition of the persistent gap in access to compensation and reinforced the “enforcement of the mandatory nature of victim compensation under the CrPC, regardless of conviction.” The report documents that the Indian Constitution does not expressly create a right to compensation. However, judicial interpretation of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), along with the Directive Principles (Articles 38 and 41), has provided a constitutional basis for compensatory relief to victims of rights violations. The Nirbhaya Fund, established in 2013 after the 2012 Delhi gang rape, is the central financing mechanism for initiatives supporting victim-centred services and women’s safety. It is administered by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, which provides monetary relief for victims of sexual offences through the Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF), One Stop Centres and emergency response systems. The SAMAJ report notes that under Section 357A, “courts recommend compensation amounts and the District Legal Services Authority/State Legal Services Authority prepares a report (two-month target) for the court to consider.” Yet in practice, the report finds “chronic under-utilisation of the fund,” with states spending less than half of their allocated funds, delaying monetary compensation and, further, fund governance lacking transparency. These implementation gaps directly hinder the compensation pathway for victims. The findings highlight that “delays in investigation, trial and administrative processing directly affect victims’/survivors’ ability to access timely rehabilitation.” In cases of sexual violence, victims report a delay in receiving compensation orders beyond the period when support is most needed. The polar cases of Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra The SAMAJ report presents the case of a 29-year-old Dalit survivor who was a government school teacher in Uttar Pradesh. The woman was sexually assaulted and videotaped. After lodging a complaint with the police, the survivor received final compensation by submitting an application to the district’s senior superintendent of police under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After receiving the government grant, the survivor was able to address some of her problems and began appearing in court. She is now pursuing a law degree. The Uttar Pradesh case study illustrates how monetary compensation became a critical enabling resource for the survivor, providing her a foundation to rebuild her life after the assault. Furthermore, financial assistance enabled her to attend court and pursue justice. Another case emerges from Maharashtra, where a study published by Behan Box examines the case of a woman belonging to a nomadic tribe. Even after an FIR was registered the accused were arrested, they were later released on bail. Having received no formal compensation or counselling from the state, her access to justice depended entirely on non-governmental support and informal fundraising. Both cases present the broad significance of monetary compensation in helping survivors continue with the justice process and survive the aftermath of violence. How can the survivor-centred compensation mechanism be strengthened? Even though India has federal innovation and jurisprudential strength on its side, the country still needs transparent fund governance and timely compensation for survivors of sexual violence. The report suggests clear timelines and streamlined procedures for the police, courts and legal services authorities responsible for processing compensation applications and disbursing funds. It stresses the need to strengthen and govern funding transparently, as in the case of the Nirbhaya Fund, where even after receiving the required allocations, states spend less than half of it. Therefore, the report argues that India needs robust data collection and accountability to address gaps in aid delivery and hold institutions accountable. SAMAJ recommends establishing a central registry of compensation orders and payments to track compliance across states. This measure would help close the gap between compensation being ordered and actually being disbursed to victims of sexual violence. The report also recommends targeted outreach and accessibility measures, informed by civil society specialists, to ensure that information, applications and compensation-related processes are widely disseminated and available in local languages. Only by strengthening the survivor-centred compensation mechanism can victims seek justice. Otherwise, the report warns, India’s system will remain “legally present but administratively fragile.”