IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 129 OF 2006
| LAXMI |...| PETITIONER(s) |
| Versus |
| UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS |...| RESPONDENT(s) |
O R D E R
On 6.2.2013, a direction was given to the Home Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs associating the Secretary, Ministry of
Chemical & Fertilizers to convene a meeting of the Chief
Secretaries/concerned Secretaries of the State Governments and the
Administrators of the Union Territories, inter alia, to discuss the
i) Enactment of appropriate provision for effective regulation
of sale of acid in the States/Union Territories.
(ii) Measures for the proper treatment, after care and
rehabilitation of the victims of acid attack and needs of acid
(iii) Compensation payable to acid victims by the State/or
creation of some separate fund for payment of compensation to
the acid attack victims.
2. Following the order of 6.2.2013, three subsequent orders
on 16.4.2013, 9.7.2013 and 16.7.2013 were passed by this Court.
3. Various State Governments/Union Territories have filed
their affidavits. The Union of India filed its last affidavit on
17.7.2013. Along with that affidavit, draft Model Rules entitled
"The Poisons Possession and Sale Rules, 2013" (for short "Model
Rules") have been placed on record. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned
Solicitor General states that the Central Government will circulate
the Model Rules to regulate sale of acid and other corrosive
substances framed under the Poisons Act, 1919 to all the State
Governments and Union Territories within a week from today. He
also states that Model Rules will include, inter alia, the form of
acids (liquids or crystalline and its concentration) that can be
stored and sold, issue of licenses, procurement by individuals,
educational and research institutions, hospitals, industries,
Government Departments and departments of Public Sector
Undertakings. We accept the statement made by the learned
Solicitor General as noted above.
4. Insofar as the States and Union Territories are
concerned, we are informed that the States of Maharashtra,
Karnataka, Kerala, Haryana, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Sikkim and
Arunachal Pradesh have framed rules to regulate sale of acid and
other corrosive substances. As regards state of Meghalaya, we find
from the available record that draft rules have been prepared, a
copy of which has been made available to the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu has stated
before us that within two months from today, appropriate rules to
regularise sale of acid and other corrosive substances shall be
6. In our opinion, all the States and Union Territories which
have not yet framed rules will do well to make rules to regulate
sale of acid and other corrosive substances in line with the Model
Rules framed by the Central Government. The States, which have
framed rules but these rules are not as stringent as the Model
Rules framed by the Central Government will make necessary
amendments in their rules to bring them in line with the Model
Rules. The Chief Secretaries of the respective States and the
Administrators of the Union Territories shall ensure compliance of
the above expeditiously and in no case later than three months from
the receipt of the draft Model Rules from the Central Government.
7. The Centre and States/Union Territories shall work
towards making the offences under the Poison Act, 1919 cognizable
8. In the States/Union Territories, where rules to regulate
sale of acid and other corrosive substances are not operational,
until such rules are framed and made operational, the Chief
Secretaries of the concerned States/Administrators of the Union
Territories shall ensure the compliance of the following directions
with immediate effect:
i) Over the counter, sale of acid is completely
prohibited unless the seller maintains a log/register
recording the sale of acid which will contain the details
of the person(s) to whom acid(s) is/are sold and the
quantity sold. The log/register shall contain the address
of the person to whom it is sold.
(ii) All sellers shall sell acid only after the buyer
a) a photo ID issued by the Government which
also has the address of the person:
b) specifies the reason/purpose for procuring
(iii) All stocks of acid must be declared by the seller
with the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) within 15
(iv) No acid shall be sold to any person who is below
18 years of age.
(v) In case of undeclared stock of acid, it will be
open to the concerned SDM to confiscate the stock and
suitably impose fine on such seller up to Rs. 50,000/-
(vi) The concerned SDM may impose fine up to Rs.
50,000/- on any person who commits breach of any of the
9. The educational institutions, research laboratories,
hospitals, Government Departments and the departments of Public
Sector Undertakings, who are required to keep and store acid, shall
follow the following guidelines:
(i) A register of usage of acid shall be maintained
and the same shall be filed with the concerned SDM.
(ii) A person shall be made accountable for possession
and safe keeping of acid in their premises.
(iii) The acid shall be stored under the supervision of
this person and there shall be compulsory checking of the
students/ personnel leaving the laboratories/place of
storage where acid is used.
10. The concerned SDM shall be vested with the responsibility
of taking appropriate action for the breach/default/ violation of
the above directions.
11. Section 357A came to inserted in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 by Act 5 of 2009 w.e.f. 31.12.2009. Inter alia,
this Section provides for preparation of a scheme for providing
funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his
dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the
crime and who require rehabilitation.
12. We are informed that pursuant to this provision, 17
States and 7 Union Territories have prepared 'Victim Compensation
Scheme' (for short "Scheme'). As regards the victims of acid
attacks the compensation mentioned in the Scheme framed by these
States and Union Territories is un-uniform. While the State of
Bihar has provided for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in such scheme,
the State of Rajasthan has provided for Rs. 2 lakhs of
compensation. In our view, the compensation provided in the Scheme
by most of the States/Union Territories is inadequate. It cannot
be overlooked that acid attack victims need to undergo a series of
plastic surgeries and other corrective treatments. Having regard
to this problem, learned Solicitor General suggested to us that the
compensation by the States/Union Territories for acid attack
victims must be enhanced to at least Rs. 3 lakhs as the after care
and rehabilitation cost. The suggestion of learned Solicitor
General is very fair.
13. We, accordingly, direct that the acid attack victims shall
be paid compensation of at least Rs. 3 lakhs by the concerned State
Government/Union Territory as the after care and rehabilitation
cost. Of this amount, a sum of Rs 1 lakh shall be paid to such
victim within 15 days of occurrence of such incident (or being
brought to the notice of the State Government/Union Territory) to
facilitate immediate medical attention and expenses in this regard.
The balance sum of Rs. 2 lakhs shall be paid as expeditiously as
may be possible and positively within two months thereafter. The
Chief Secretaries of the States and the Administrators of the Union
Territories shall ensure compliance of the above direction.
14. The Chief Secretaries of the States and Administrators of
the Union Territories shall take necessary steps in getting this
order translated into vernacular and publicise the same
appropriately for the information of public at large.
15. List the matter on December 3, 2013.
(FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]
JULY 18, 2013.
ITEM NO. 1 COURT NO. 3 SECTION PIL
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO(s). 129 OF 2006
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents, exemption from
filing O.T. and permission to bring on record the draft of the scheme and
rehabilitation of offence (by acids) on women and children by National
Commission for Women and direction and impleadment and permission to file
counter affidavit and office report )
[for final disposal]
Date: 18/07/2013 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aparna Bhat,Adv.
Ms Rajkumari Banju, Adv.
UOI Mr. Mohan Parasaran, SG
Mr. W.S.A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Adv.
Mr. D.L. Chidanand, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Rawat, Adv.
Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. for
Mr. B.K Prasad, Adv.
Ms. Sunita Shara,Adv.
Ms V. Bhandari, Adv.
Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv.
Mr. S. Saini, Adv. for
Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.
M.P. Mr. C.D.Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sunny Choudhary, Adv.
: 2 :
Jharkhand Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv.
Meghalaya Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. T.M. Singh, Adv.
Haryana Mr. Manjit Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Vivekta Singh, Adv. for
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.
Arunachal Pradesh Mr. Anil Shrivastava, Adv.
Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.
Mizoram Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv.
Mr. M.T. George, Adv.
Punjab Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Adv.
Mr. Ujas Kumar, Adv.
Rajasthan Dr. Manish Singhvi, Adv.
Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Adv.
Manipur Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv.
Mr. S.Bioswajit Meitei, Adv.
Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Shubhada Deshpande, Adv.
J&K Mr Sunil Fernandes, Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Vernika Tomar, Adv.
Ms. Insha Mir, Adv.
Maharashtra Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv.
Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Chandan Kumar, Adv.
Tripura Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv
Mr. Ritu Raj Biswas, Adv.
UP Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Pareena Swarup, Adv.
Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv. for
Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, Adv.
: 3 :
Puducherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.
Mr. S. Aristotle, Adv.
Mr. Praburamasubramanian, Adv.
Sikkim Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv.
Mr. Yusuf Khan, Adv. for
Ms. Movita, Adv. for
M/s. Arputham, Aruna and Co.
TAMIL NADU Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Adv.
Mr. A. Santha Kumaran, Adv.
ASSAM Ms. Vartika Sahay Walia, Adv. for
M/s. Corporate Law Group
KARNATAKA Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv.
UTTRAKHAND Mr. Prateek Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Adv.
Himachal Pradesh Mr. Ajay Marwaha, Adv.
Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Adv.
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv.
Goa Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv.
Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Adv.
Mr. Anuj Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Nair, Adv. for
M/s. K.J. John & Co
Andaman & Nicobar Mr. Balsubramaniam, Adv.
Mr. K.V. Jagdisavaran, Adv.
Ms. G. Indira, Adv.
Nagland Ms. K. Enatoli Soma, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Chhattisgarh Mr. Atul Jha, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Jha, Adv. for
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.
West Bengal Ms. Debjani Das, Adv.
Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
Ms. Sarbani Kar, Adv.
U.T. of Chandigarh Mr. Sangram S. Saron, Adv.
Mr Shree Pal Singh, Adv.
: 4 :
Mr. M.T. George,Adv.
Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv.
Mr.Anil Shrivastava, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
This Court, in terms of signed order, has passed certain
directions to the Central Government, States/Union Territories and
also directed to list the matter on December 3, 2013.
|(Pardeep Kumar) | |(Renu Diwan) |
|Court Master | |Court Master |
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
Mohit Singh is a Delhi based advocate.
Latest posts by Mohit Singh (see all)