Back
Mandates for Male Acid Attack Survivors: Enhances Relief to Rs 15 Lakh
In a landmark ruling that addresses the systemic inequities faced by male acid attack survivors, the has significantly enhanced the compensation awarded to Rahul Kumar, a victim of a brutal acid attack. The Division Bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, not only increased the compensation from ₹3 lakh to ₹15 lakh but also questioned the constitutionality of State policies that differentiate between victims based on gender.
A Quest for Justice Amidst Physical and Financial Ruin
The ordeal began in , when Rahul Kumar, then a young student, intervened during a neighborhood dispute to protect his 10-year-old cousin from verbal abuse. In a horrific act of violence, a local woman threw acid on him. The attack resulted in the permanent disfigurement of his face, loss of eyesight, and injuries to his ears, neck, and chest. Over the past 14 years, Rahul has undergone 14 reconstructive surgeries, suffering a 45% permanent disability that effectively shattered his aspirations of becoming a Chartered Accountant.
Despite his immense suffering, Rahul’s struggle was compounded by the State’s meager compensation of ₹3 lakh, initially granted under the . Challenging the discriminatory nature of the scheme—which offers higher relief to female victims compared to males—Rahul sought redressal before the High Court.
Legal Hurdles and the "" Doctrine
The State had initially challenged the maintainability of the appeal, pointing to a delay of 1,374 days. However, the Court displayed profound empathy, ruling that the physical and psychological trauma faced by an acid attack survivor constitutes a "
" for the delay. The Bench remarked that it would be
"oblivious to the psychological distress and physical injury"
if it were to penalize the survivor for prioritizing life-saving medical treatment over litigation.
Arguments: The Quest for Equality
Counsel for the appellant, , argued that acid attacks are crimes against the human body, not specifically against a gender. She contended that discriminatory compensation schemes violate the mandate of and the principle of equality before the law. The appellant emphasized that the costs of surgeries and rehabilitation, which have exceeded ₹25 Lakh, rendered the initial ₹3 Lakh compensation "a miniscule percentage" of the actual trauma.
The State, however, maintained that the existing notifications were policy-based and that the appellant had already received the prescribed amount under the 2016 scheme.
Key Observations
The Court’s judgment highlights the inadequacy of current compensation frameworks and the need for a gender-neutral approach:
-
On the nature of the trauma:
"A virulent regressive and a potent attack with acid on the appellant/writ-petitioner had not only caused disfigurement of his face but more notably disfigurement of his soul."
-
On constitutional values:
The Court noted that the State, as a "
," must operate on the field of equality and that the
"disparity between male and female victims"
in current schemes requires urgent revision to"obliterate the discrimination it accentuates."
-
On the sufficiency of relief:
Quoting the ’s stance in
, the Bench observed:
"The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the victim of acid attack requires permanent treatment for the damaged skin. The mere amount of Rs 3 lakhs will not be of any help to such a victim."
The Verdict: A Path to Rehabilitation
In its final decision, the Court directed: 1. Enhanced Compensation: The State is to pay an additional ₹12 lakh, bringing the total compensation to ₹15 lakh. 2. Medical Reimbursement: The State must cover actual costs for ongoing and future surgeries, ensuring direct payment to hospitals where possible to support the victim’s rehabilitation. 3. Expedited Process: The Court ordered the payments to be made within specific timelines (eight weeks for the balance compensation, and four weeks for medical reimbursements pending documentation).
This judgment sends a strong signal to State authorities that compensation schemes must be grounded in the reality of the victim's suffering rather than categorized by gender. It reaffirms the Court's stance that the "" encompasses the right to live with dignity, requiring the State to provide comprehensive support for survivors of such heinous crimes.
