Railway Concessions for Acid Attack Survivors: Centre Agrees in Principle

The Union Government has informed the Supreme Court that it has agreed "in principle" to formulate a policy granting railway travel concessions to acid attack survivors, specifically to aid their commuting for medical treatment. The assurance came on a day when the Supreme Court, while hearing a plea on the matter, suggested that the concessions could be structured as a social welfare measure. The Court has granted the Centre six weeks to draft and present the policy.

Background and the Need for the Concession

The public interest litigation was filed by Atijeevan Society, seeking railway fare concessions and emergency reservation quotas for acid attack survivors. The petition highlighted that survivors often require multiple reconstructive surgeries, advanced ophthalmic interventions, and prolonged post-operative care. Such specialized treatment, the PIL argued, is only available at a handful of tertiary care institutions in metropolitan cities like Delhi, Chennai, and Hyderabad.

The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that survivors are often forced to undertake multiple visits to super-specialty hospitals over four to five years. The financial burden of repeated travel, coupled with the need to navigate an often-complex booking process, adds to their ordeal. The submissions noted that survivors are required to obtain medical certificates to seek railway reservations, a process that can be both difficult and time-consuming.

Government's Stance: Patient Category vs. Disability Category

Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave informed the bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, that the Railway Board has principally agreed to provide the concession. However, the government proposed extending this benefit under the existing "patient category" rather than the "disability category."

ASG Dave explained the government's rationale, stating, "I can inform that they will put the acid attack victims in the patient category … because they have some reservations about putting them under the disabled category as others in that disabled category are not given railway concessions."

She further elaborated, "They are in the disabled category, but we will give them concession under the patient category because they require it for the purpose of going to the doctor and for their treatment. We are still deliberating, but under the disabled category, because we are not giving this concession to all disabled persons, then the other categories would also come and say that the concession should be given to them as well." The government's concern is that extending the benefit to all persons with disabilities could set a precedent that is not currently financially or administratively feasible.

Practical Hurdles and Court's Observations

While the Centre's stance was met with some understanding, the petitioner's counsel raised valid concerns about the practical implementation of the "patient category." The counsel argued that this approach could create difficulties, as concessions under this category are often linked to a single route. For instance, a survivor from Himachal Pradesh travelling to Chennai for treatment would need a concession certificate from a designated hospital in Chennai.

The counsel illustrated the problem: "Suppose I live in Himachal Pradesh and I need to go to Chennai, I will have to get a certificate from some doctor or hospital in Chennai. I might need multiple surgeries. I may have to go to Bombay for skin grafting, and I might need to travel to different places." The counsel also highlighted the need for emergency travel quotas, especially during the initial months following an attack when medical needs are most acute.

Responding to these submissions, the Bench suggested that the concession could be made time-bound. The Chief Justice of India proposed that the benefit could be extended for a fixed period, allowing survivors to travel for treatment during that time. The Court directed the Centre to work out the specific modalities while framing the policy, urging a practical approach that prioritizes the survivors' needs.

Legal Implications and the Path Forward

This development is significant as it aligns with the legislative intent behind the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. The Supreme Court has previously noted that acid attack survivors are recognised as persons with disabilities under the law, especially with a 2022 amendment that brought those suffering from internal injuries under its ambit. The Court's suggestion to frame the concession as a "social welfare measure" provides the government with a flexible framework to offer targeted relief without being constrained by the broader implications of the disability rights legislation.

The Centre has been given six weeks to place the draft policy before the Court. The government has also agreed to share the draft with the petitioners, Atijeevan Society, to solicit their suggestions. The Court's final order is awaited, but the government's "in-principle" agreement is a welcome step towards alleviating the burdens faced by acid attack survivors, ensuring that financial constraints do not become a barrier to their essential medical care and rehabilitation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's intervention and the Centre's positive response mark a significant step forward in supporting acid attack survivors. By considering the practical challenges of implementing the scheme and pushing for a welfare-based approach, the Court is ensuring that the rights and needs of survivors are addressed with the urgency and dignity they deserve.