LAXMI V. UNION OF INDIA

By Shriyanshi[1]

In the Supreme Court of India

    NAME OF THE CASE    Laxmi V. Union of India
    CITATION    Writ petition (Crl.) No. 129 of 2006
    DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT    April 10, 2015
    APELLATE    Laxmi
    RESPONDENT    Union of India and Others
    BENCH/ JUDGE      R.M. Lodha and F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
    STATUTES/CONSTITUTION INVOLVEDConstitution of India; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Poisons Act 1919; Indian Penal Code, 1860    
    IMPORTANT SECTIONS INVOLVEDConstitution of India: Articles 14,15,21 and 32   Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sections 357, 357- A and 357-C   Poisons Act, 1919: Sections 2 and 8   Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 326- A and 326- B  

ABSTRACT

The case involved filing of a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court. It was filed as a result of the acid attacks that were prevalent in the country. Before this PIL was filed, there were no uniform laws to deal with the victims of the acid attacks, the punishments were granted by the judges’ disposition and the circumstances of the case. It was in response to the acids that were thrown inhumanely particularly on women with the ultimate motive of disfiguring them. The PIL was filed by Laxmi Agarwal, an acid attack survivor.

INTRODUCTION

“A bottle that costs just INR 30- 40 ruins our life forever……” were the words of Ms. Daulat Bi Khan (an acid attack survivor).

“Acid attacks are a form of violence, in which acid or another corrosive substance is thrown at a person – usually a woman or a girl – with the intention of maiming, torturing or killing them.”

With large number of cases of acid attacks, it has always been directed upon the women or the girls of the society with a common intention of doing so, that is, refusal of marriage, denying sex and the rejection by the women or the girl. The face is disfigured and the perpetrator gets the ice on the cake moment as he is able to limit the women’s ability and valour to socialize and do work independently. The consequences of acid throwing are burning of the tissues of the skin, damaging of the face, dissolving of the bones, other long-term effects include complete blindness, permanent scarring of the face and body with limited social interaction, economic difficulties and most importantly affects their chances of marriage and having children.

After the Laxmi case, the court intervened into this practice of throwing of acids and then provisions got added to the Indian Penal Code, 1860, that is. Section 326B that defines acid “any substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.” Supreme Court has also titled acid attack worse than murder. As reported by Statista for the year 2020, there were 182 cases of acid attacks reported[2], it is not a small figure but there are certain cases that go unnoticed and acid becomes the ultimate weapon of perpetrators. Rupees one lac is given under Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, the free treatment and three lacs compensation[3] that is set up by the Supreme Court for the acid attack victims.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Laxmi Agarwal, just a budding kid unknown to the world and its happening witnessed the most horrific moment of her life in 2005 while she was just 15 years old and studied in class 11th. A man named Naeem Khan worked in Laxmi’s neighbourhood, he proposed to her and she rejected him, she even feared speaking about it to her parents as they would blame her for no reason therefore, she remained silent. After a span of 10 months, on a day, she was again approached by him through a message but she did not respond; with the blink of an eye, she was attacked with the throwing of acid on her face. The crime was committed unanimously by three people, Naeem, his older brother and his girlfriend. She was helped by a man named Arun Singh who admitted her in the hospital and called up her parents while the police too arrived in the hospital. It had been four days to the attack that Naeem was arrested but was soon released on bail after a month. Laxmi filed a Public Interest Litigation in 2006 to deal with the crisis of the buying and selling of acids.

In the order dated 30- 10- 2009, the Supreme Court directed: “Issue notice in applications to the States concerned and in addition to the Standing Counsel for the States.”

While the writ petition was pending, an amendment was made in the CrPC, 1973 by Act 5 of 2009 that inserted Sections 357-A that requires the State government to collaborate with the Central government to make various schemes in relation with acid attack victims, their compensation and rehabilitation.

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

  1. Can there be amendments made in the CrPC,1973 and IPC 1860 relating to acid attacks?
  2. What all procedure has to be followed to buy and sell acids?
  3. Can there be a complete ban on acids?
  4. Are there proper laws related to acids attacks victims in various states and UTs and if it persists, are they properly implemented?

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PETITONER

  • The learned counsel prayed for an amendment in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to deal with acid attack victims; directions to be given to make guidelines for the prosecution of the acid throwers and rehabilitation of acid attack victims.
  • She contended on the need of framing guidelines with respect to the acid attack victims
  • Another prayer was to adopt measures for treatment, care and rehabilitation of the victims of the acid attack
  • The counsel also emphasised on the necessity to forbid sale of easily available acids and completely ban retail sale of acids if the State Governments or the UTs could not make proper schemes.
  • The counsel also emphasised on the fact of providing proper compensation to the acid attack victims.
  • Another point brought to the notice was the State of Haryana’s efforts of bearing 100 percent cost of treatment of the aid victims and to provide cosmetic surgeries, psychological treatments, etc. and other states or UTs can make such laws so that the victims come out of the trauma of acid attack.
  • The learned counsel ended by saying that a separate Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to look into the matters dealing with acid attack victims and such purpose.

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT

  • The learned counsel replied to the prayer of the petitioner that amendments have been made in the CrPC, 1973.
  • The counsel further stated that Criminal Law Amendment Bill, 2012 has been given passage by the Cabinet and since the current parliament session is to expire soon therefore the bill shall positively introduced in the winter session of the Parliament that talks about making amendments to the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  • He further submitted that it is the subject of the state to make provisions and regulation of the sale of acid but they would convene a meeting of the Chief Secretaries of the Governments concerned and the UTs administrators to make a consensus.
  • The counsel argued that since there was recurrence of the acid attacks, there is necessity of regulation of retail sale and that the new set of rules would be framed under Poisons Act, 1919 that the acids such as nitric, sulphuric and hydrochloric are sold in retail of strength so that it does not harm the humans.
  • It was further contended that various states and UTs have decided to keep acids sale and corrosive substances under the head of “poison” in the Poisons Act, 1919.
  • The counsel submitted that the Model Rules entitled “the Poisons Possession and Sale Rules, 2013” have been put forward and that the rules would include, “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.”

RELATED PROVISIONS

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

  • ARTICLE 14: “Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.”[4]
  • ARTICLE 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
  •  The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them[5]
  • No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to
  •  access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and palaces of public entertainment; or[6]
  •  the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public[7]
  •  Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children[8]
  • Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes[9]
  • ARTICLE 21: “Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”[10]
  • ARTICLE 32:  Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
  •  The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed[11]
  •  The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part[12]
  • Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )[13]
  •  The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution[14]

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

SECTION 357: Order to pay compensation.

  1. When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied-[15]
  2.  in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution;[16]
  3.  in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court;[17]
  4.  when any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855), entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death;[18]
  5. when any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or retained, or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of, stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, in compensating any bona fide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto.[19]
  6.  If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal.[20]
  7.  When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced.[21]
  8.  An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.[22]
  9.  At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section.[23]

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

  • SECTION 326A: “Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or bums or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine;

           Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of            the treatment of the victim;

          Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.”[24]

  • SECTION 326B: “Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or bums or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”[25]

POISONS ACT, 1919

  • SECTION 2: Power of the State Government to regulate possession for sale and sale of any poison. —
  •  [***] The State Government may by rule regulate within the whole or any part of the territories under its administration the possession for sale and the sale, whether wholesale or retail, of any specified poison.[26]
  • the grant of licences to possess any specified poison for sale, wholesale or retail, and fixing of the fee (if any) to be charged for such licences;[27]
  • the classes of persons to whom alone such licences may be granted;[28]
  •  the classes of persons to whom alone any such poison may be sold;[29]
  •  the maximum quantity of any such poison which may be sold to any one person;[30]
  •  the maintenance by vendors of any such poison of registers of sales, the particulars to be entered in such registers, and the inspection of the same;[31]
  •  the safe custody of such poisons and the labelling of the vessels, packages or coverings in which any such poison is sold or possessed for sale; and[32]
  •  the inspection and examination of any such poison when possessed for sale by any such vendor.[33]

SECTION 8: Rules. —

  1.  In addition to any other power to make rules hereinbefore conferredthe State Government may make rules generally to carry out the purposes and objects of the Ac [except section 3].[34]
  2. Every power to make rules conferred by this Act shall be subject to the condition of the rules being made after previous publication.

All rules made by the Central Government or by the State Government under this Act shall be published in the [Official Gazette] and on such publication shall have effect as if enacted in this Act.[35]

  • Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.[36]
  •  Every rule made by the State Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before the State Legislature.][37]

JUDGEMENT

The honourable court patiently listened to the contentions put forward to by both the parties, for a very long period, this case continued and the respondents were quite active in making laws and heard the order of the court. The court ordered for the enactment in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the amendments were made with the insertion of Sections of 326- A and 326- B (Crimes Against Women and Children). The court further satiated the petitioners by saying that while the petition was still pending, the amendments were made in the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 by insertion of Section of 357-A and it looks after the needs of the acid victims of cost of compensation, medical treatment, etc. The court discussed that there were 309 acid attacks in the year 2014 by the affidavit submitted. The Victim Compensation Scheme has been enacted throughout all the states and union territories as the court held that they have been informed of.

Through the directions of this court earlier in this case, the minimum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 per acid attack victim has not been fixed by many states and UTs[38]. Therefore, the court ordered the State Legal Services Authority to look into it and ensure that the payment of the minimum compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs is given to each acid victim. The court also directed that full medical service should be provided and private hospitals should also indulge themselves in this activity of free treatment, and the free treatment includes not only the “physical treatment” but also providing with “medicines, food, bedding, and reconstructive surgeries.”. The court emphasised on the points that were given after the meeting was held and stated that the states and the UTs should be inclined to it. That is, to provide specialized facilities after the victim is stabilized. No hospital should refuse treatment stating the unavailability of specialised facilities. If any hospital does not comply, they would be punished under Section 357C of the CrPC, 1973.

The court further said that on the issue of banning of acid sale across the counter, “we direct the Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to take up the matter with the State Governments/Union Territories to ensure that an appropriate notification to this effect is issued within a period of three months from today.”

The court penned down its judgement by considering the last matter related to acid attack victim, it shall be looked into by the District Legal Services Authority and this would consist of the District Judge and other person who the District Judge feels suitable should serve as the assistance, in particular the District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and the Civil Surgeon or the Chief Medical Officer  as it has been set up to look into such instances and that the contention of setting up if Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was dropped because it would lead to “multiplicity of authorities”.

CONCLUSION

This case was an absolute answer to the society that even women have the courage to fight against the odds of their life, they too can question the laws that are made to serve the citizens of the country. It was not just about one acid attack survivor’s fight; it was about the sale of acid on the shops that had made the throwing of acid a trend in those times and it still continues. This case extends to the implementation of new laws that are framed giving a new ray of hope that such crimes would not be seen, it was an implementation to protect the women from the egoistic male chauvinist who can go to the extent of deforming and blemishing the face and body of a woman.

This also brought into the concept that the women should be listened to and the atmosphere in the house should be such that they are able to easily articulate and not be left in a corner. The judiciary can only remove the evils of the society and hence were successful in amending the laws and provided for free legal aid and issued other important guidelines. As Laxmi Agarwal says, “I am not a victim, I am a survivor. The man who attacked me will cover his face, I won’t.”, she serves as an immediate source of inspiration for many. It’s not the end and has to go a long way, the perpetrators are punished, they get bailed and lead a happy life but what about the psychological disturbance of a victim or a survivor who has to deal with the atrocities of the society, all because she acted against the wishes or tried to shut the mouth of the male dominated community.

[1] Author is 3rd semester of Amity Law School, Lucknow.

[2] Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1103056/india-acid-attack-cases/ (last visited Jul 5, 2022).

[3] Laxmi V. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427.

[4] INDIA CONST. art. 14.

[5] INDIA CONST. art. 15, cl.1.

[6] INDIA CONST. art. 15, cl.2(a)

[7] INDIA CONST. art. 15, cl.2(b).

[8] INDIA CONST. art. 15, cl.3.

[9] INDIA CONST. art. 15, cl.4.

[10] INDIA CONST. art. 21.

[11] INDIA CONST. art. 32, cl.1.

[12] INDIA CONST. art 32, cl.2

[13] INDIA CONST. art. 32, cl.3.

[14] INDIA CONST. art. 32, cl.4.

[15] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 357(1), No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[16] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 357(1)(a), No.2, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[17] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 357(1)(b), No.2, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[18] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 357(1)(c), No.2, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[19] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 357(1)(d), No.2, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[20] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 357(2), No.2, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[21] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 357(3), No.2, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[22] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 357(4), No.2, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[23] The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 357(5), No.2, Acts of Parliament, 1973(India).

[24] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 326(A), No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860(India).

[25] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 326(B), No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860(India).

[26] The Poisons Act, 1919, § 2(1), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 1919(India).

[27] The Poisons Act, 1919, § 2(1)(A), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 1919(India).

[28] The Poisons Act, 1919, § 2(1)(B), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 1919(India).

[29] The Poisons Act, 1919, § 2(1)(C), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 1919(India).

[30] The Poisons Act, 1919, § 2(1)(D), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 1919(India).

[31] The Poisons Act, 1919, § 2(1)(E), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 1919(India).

[32] The Poisons Act, 1919, § 2(1)(F), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 1919(India).

[33] The Poisons Act, 1919, § 2(1)(G), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 1919(India).

[34] The Poisons Act, 1919, § 8(1), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 1919(India).

[35] The Poisons Act, 1919, § 8(2), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 1919(India).

[36] The Poisons Act, 1919, § 8(3), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 1919(India).

[37] The Poisons Act, 1919, § 8(4), No. 12, Acts of Parliament, 1919(India).

[38] Laxmi V. Union of India, 2014 4 SCC 427.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,