Legal Framework for Victims of Acid Attacks in India: A Critical Analysis

Legal Protections and Compensation for Victims of Acid Attacks in India: A Judicial and Legislative Evolution

Introduction

Acid attacks, a particularly heinous form of gender-based violence, inflict devastating physical and psychological trauma upon victims, leading to lifelong suffering and societal marginalization.[1] In India, the legal response to this menace has evolved significantly over the past decades, largely driven by judicial activism and subsequent legislative reforms. This article critically analyzes the legal framework addressing victims of acid attacks in India, focusing on the regulation of acid sales, criminalization of attacks, provisions for compensation, medical treatment, and rehabilitation. It draws extensively upon landmark Supreme Court judgments and statutory provisions to trace this evolution and assess the current state of legal protection afforded to survivors.

Legislative Framework and Early Judicial Interventions

Historically, acid attacks were prosecuted under general provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), such as those pertaining to grievous hurt. However, the unique brutality and long-term consequences of acid violence necessitated specific legal recognition and more stringent measures.

The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

A watershed moment in addressing acid attacks was the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which introduced specific offences into the IPC. Sections 326A and 326B were inserted, criminalizing the act of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid and voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid, respectively, with stringent punishments.[6] Concurrently, amendments were made to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Section 357A was introduced in 2009, mandating State Governments to prepare Victim Compensation Schemes (VCS) in coordination with the Central Government for victims of crime, including acid attack survivors.[9] Section 357B further clarified that compensation payable by the State Government under Section 357A is in addition to the payment of any fine to the victim under Section 326A IPC.[16] Crucially, Section 357-C was inserted, mandating all hospitals, public or private, to provide free first-aid or medical treatment to victims of offences covered under sections like 326A IPC.[7, 12]

Regulation of Acid Sales: The Poisons Act and Model Rules

The Supreme Court, in Laxmi v. Union Of India And Others (2014)[18], recognized that the easy availability of acid was a primary contributor to such attacks. The Court directed the Central Government to circulate Model Rules to regulate the sale of acid and other corrosive substances under the Poisons Act, 1919. Subsequent orders, including one in 2013, detailed these regulations, such as prohibiting the sale of acid to persons below 18 years of age, requiring sellers to maintain a register of purchasers, and mandating safe storage.[9] The Court emphasized that States must frame rules in line with these Model Rules or amend existing rules to ensure stringency.[18] Despite these directives, the challenge of controlling over-the-counter acid sales persists, as highlighted in Parivartan Kendra v. Union Of India And Others (2015), where it was noted that "acid is still readily available to most of the population in India."[5, 11]

The Evolution of Victim Compensation Jurisprudence

The judiciary has played a vanguard role in ensuring meaningful compensation for acid attack survivors, recognizing the inadequacy of initial state responses.

The Landmark Directives in Laxmi v. Union of India

The series of judgments in the Laxmi case were pivotal. In its 2013 order, the Supreme Court, acknowledging the inadequacy of compensation under various state schemes (ranging from Rs. 25,000 in Bihar to Rs. 2 lakhs in Rajasthan), directed that acid attack victims shall be paid a compensation of at least Rs. 3 lakhs by the concerned State Government/Union Territory.[9] This was to cover aftercare and rehabilitation costs, with Rs. 1 lakh to be paid within 15 days of the incident for immediate medical expenses.[9] This minimum was reiterated in subsequent orders, emphasizing the need for uniformity and adequacy.[19, 12] The Court also stressed the role of State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) in ensuring compliance and publicizing the schemes.[12]

Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India: Expanding the Scope of Compensation and State Accountability

The case of Parivartan Kendra v. Union Of India And Others (2015/2016)[2, 5, 11] further underscored the systemic failures in providing adequate support. The Court observed the "grievous state of acid attack survivors" and the insufficiency of existing compensation schemes.[2] Highlighting the case of two Dalit sisters from Bihar who received grossly inadequate compensation and improper medical treatment, the Court directed the State of Bihar to reimburse Rs. 5 lakhs for expenses and provide an additional Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation for pain and suffering.[2] This judgment emphasized that the Rs. 3 lakh minimum set in Laxmi was a floor, and states could provide more.[17] The Court lamented that "the State has failed to check the distribution of acid falling into the wrong hands" and that "stringent action be taken against those erring persons supplying acid without proper authorisation."[5] It also highlighted the lifelong medical needs, social stigma, and loss of marriage prospects and employment opportunities faced by survivors.[5, 13]

Implementation Challenges and Judicial Oversight

Despite clear judicial mandates, implementation of compensation schemes remained problematic. The Supreme Court in Parivartan Kendra (2015) noted that many States had not notified VCS or provided meagre amounts, with some offering no rehabilitation compensation.[5] The Court also observed the disparity in compensation amounts across states, reinforcing the need for uniformity and adequacy.[2] The Uttarakhand High Court in STATE OF UTTARAKHAND v. AJAM (2017) opined that "the mere amount of Rs. 3 lakhs will not be of any help to such a victim" and that enhancement would act as a deterrent and compel states to implement guidelines properly.[8] The NALSA's Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes, 2018, as noted by the Calcutta High Court in Paramita Bera And Another v. Union Of India And Others (2023), suggested a minimum compensation of Rs. 7 to 8 lakhs, with an additional 50% for minor victims, indicating an evolving understanding of adequate compensation.[13]

Medical Treatment and Rehabilitation of Survivors

The physical and psychological recovery of acid attack survivors is an arduous, lifelong process requiring extensive medical intervention and rehabilitative support.

Section 357-C CrPC: Mandate for Free Medical Treatment

Section 357-C CrPC, introduced by the 2013 Amendment, mandates that all hospitals, public or private, shall immediately provide free first-aid or medical treatment to victims of acid attacks.[7] The Supreme Court in Laxmi v. Union of India (2015)[20] directed the Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Secretary in the Ministry of Health to convene meetings with states to work out details for treatment, emphasizing that private hospitals must also provide free medical treatment.[12] The Court acknowledged the potential reluctance of private hospitals and urged state officials to ensure their compliance.[12]

Addressing Long-Term Needs: Beyond Immediate Medical Care

Acid attacks cause not only severe physical disfigurement requiring multiple, costly surgeries throughout a victim's life,[5, 11] but also profound psychological trauma.[1, 10] As observed in Parivartan Kendra, victims face immense social stigma, difficulty in finding employment, and diminished marriage prospects.[5, 13] The Court noted, "the very sight of the victim is traumatising for us. If we could be traumatised by the mere sight of injuries caused to the victim by the inhumane acid attack on her, what would the situation of the victim be...".[5] The need for comprehensive rehabilitation, including psychological counseling, skill development, and social reintegration, is paramount, yet often inadequately addressed by existing schemes.[5]

Broader Dimensions: Gender Justice and Societal Change

Acid attacks are overwhelmingly perpetrated against women and girls, often as a form of revenge or control, underscoring their nature as a severe form of gender-based violence.

Acid Attacks as Gender-Based Violence

The Supreme Court in SHIVANI TYAGI v. STATE OF U.P. (2024) observed that "Usually vitriolage or acid attack has transformed itself as a gender based violence. Acid attacks not only cause damage to the physical appearance of its victims but also cause immense psychological trauma thereby becoming a hurdle in their overall development."[1] This sentiment was echoed by the Allahabad High Court in Man Singh v. State Of U.P. (2024).[10] The deep-rooted gender bias in society is seen as a contributing factor to such crimes.[1, 10]

The Need for Systemic and Attitudinal Shifts

While legal reforms and judicial interventions are crucial, they are insufficient in isolation. As stated in SHIVANI TYAGI, "It must be recognised that having stringent laws and enforcement agencies may not be sufficient unless deep-rooted gender bias is removed from the society."[1] The comparison with stronger laws in countries like Bangladesh, as mentioned in Parivartan Kendra, suggests that India's legal framework, while improved, may still require strengthening to effectively address the gravity of acid attacks and adequately support survivors.[5, 11]

Challenges and The Path Forward

Despite significant progress, several challenges persist in ensuring justice and comprehensive support for acid attack survivors in India.

Persistent Issues in Implementation

The continued availability of acid,[5, 11] delays in police action,[11] inadequate and delayed compensation,[5] and improper medical treatment[11] remain serious concerns. The issue of retrospective application of compensation schemes for attacks predating Section 357A CrPC has also been raised, with courts like the Calcutta High Court in Piyali Dutta v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors. (2017) arguing for a beneficial interpretation to grant relief.[14]

Strengthening Deterrence and Prevention

Effective enforcement of regulations on acid sales is critical. Furthermore, robust prosecution and sentencing of perpetrators are necessary to create a strong deterrent effect. While not directly about acid attacks, the Supreme Court's stance in cases like State Of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar (2012) on upholding mandatory minimum sentences for heinous crimes, unless "adequate and special reasons" are documented, underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that punishments reflect the gravity of offences.[4] This principle is relevant to ensuring that perpetrators of acid attacks face the full force of the law.

Ensuring Comprehensive and Dignified Rehabilitation

The focus must extend beyond monetary compensation to encompass holistic rehabilitation. This includes access to quality, long-term medical care, including reconstructive surgeries and psychological support, educational and vocational training, and measures to facilitate social reintegration and combat stigma. The observation in State of Himachal Pradesh and Another vs Vijay Kumar alias Pappu and Another, cited in SHIVANI TYAGI and Man Singh, that such victims "cannot be compensated by grant of any compensation"[1, 10] poignantly highlights the irreparable nature of the harm and the profound need for enduring support systems.

Conclusion

The legal landscape concerning victims of acid attacks in India has undergone a significant transformation, primarily propelled by the proactive stance of the Supreme Court and subsequent legislative actions. Landmark judgments in cases like Laxmi and Parivartan Kendra have established crucial precedents for regulating acid sales, mandating minimum compensation, ensuring free medical treatment, and recognizing the multifaceted trauma faced by survivors. However, the journey towards ensuring complete justice, dignity, and comprehensive rehabilitation for every survivor is ongoing. Persistent challenges in the implementation of laws and schemes, the continued easy availability of acid, and the deep-seated societal attitudes that contribute to such violence necessitate sustained efforts from all stakeholders—the legislature, judiciary, executive, and civil society. A multi-pronged approach that combines stringent legal enforcement, accessible and adequate support mechanisms, and a societal commitment to gender equality is essential to eradicate this horrific crime and empower survivors to rebuild their lives with dignity.

References