Supreme Court declines PIL on rehabilitation and enhanced compensation for Nellie massacre victims

The Supreme Court on Monday, September 1 declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a comprehensive rehabilitation package and enhanced compensation for victims of the 1983 Nellie massacre in Assam’s Morigaon district.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta permitted the petitioners to withdraw the plea, directing them to approach the High Court instead. “Why can’t you approach the High Court?” Justice Mehta asked during the proceedings.

The Nellie massacre, which occurred on February 18, 1983, left more than 2,000 people dead—mostly Bengali-speaking Muslims—within hours. The killings followed the controversial state elections held amid the Assam Agitation, after then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s decision to grant voting rights to four million Bengali Muslims.

Representing the petitioners, advocate Warisha Farasat argued that the compensation offered to victims and survivors was grossly inadequate. Families who lost relatives were granted only ₹5,000 per deceased member, while those who sustained injuries received a mere ₹1,500.

Farasat emphasized that the case carried historic and moral weight, as the massacre devastated thousands of marginalized families—many of them small farmers—who have lived without meaningful state support for over four decades. She contended that the long passage of time had only compounded the injustice.

The petition, filed through advocate Srishti Agnihotri, sought directions to the State of Assam and the Centre to:

Frame and implement a comprehensive rehabilitation scheme ensuring just and adequate reparation under Article 21.

Set up a commission to reassess and enhance compensation, aligning it with other instances of communal violence.

Provide adequate housing, healthcare, and education facilities with concessions for survivors and victims’ families.

Establish a body to oversee implementation and ensure effective disbursal of compensation.

Despite these submissions, the Court remained unwilling to intervene, leaving the petitioners with the option of seeking relief before the High Court.