Case Brief: Laxmi v. Union of India and Ors. | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Case Name: Laxmi v. Union Of India and Ors.
• Citation: 2014 SCC 4 427
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Uday Umesh Lalit
• Theme: PIL for betterment of acid attack survivors
• Subject: Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code

Background for Laxmi v. Union of India

• Overview: The case of Laxmi v. Union of India was a significant legal milestone in India. It involved a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated by Laxmi, an acid attack survivor, which led to the formulation of guidelines aimed at improving the situation of acid attack survivors.
• Impactful Verdict: The Supreme Court's ruling imposed restrictions on the sale of acid and mandated compensation for victims. Previously, acid attacks were treated as general offenses causing "grievous hurt."
• Legal Reforms: Following the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013, which stemmed from recommendations by the Justice J.S. Verma Commission post the 2012 heinous incident, acid violence was recognized as a distinct offense carrying a penalty of life imprisonment and fines.
• Pre-Verdict Scenario: Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, acid was easily available for purchase, and the government's compensation for victims was inadequate. Acid attack survivors faced enduring physical and psychological trauma, leading to a drastically altered quality of life.
• Societal Challenges: Survivors encountered immense challenges reintegrating into society due to the visible scars and disabilities resulting from the attacks. This societal stigma often hindered their ability to lead normal lives, causing emotional distress and isolation.
• Positive Outcomes: The case acted as a catalyst for increased reporting of acid attacks, shedding light on a previously underreported issue and emphasizing the need for stringent punitive measures to deter such heinous crimes.

Key Facts about Laxmi v. Union of India

• Laxmi, an acid attack survivor, initiated a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in 2006 after being attacked by three men in New Delhi for refusing to marry a man called Naeem Khan (also known as Guddu) when she was a minor.
• She endured significant trauma and physical suffering from the attack. Despite undergoing numerous surgeries, she was unable to fully restore her appearance due to severe damage to her upper body.
• The culprits were charged with attempted murder and were convicted by the Delhi district court.
• However, they were later granted bail by the High court, which came as a shock to Laxmi considering the severity of her ordeal.
• Subsequently, Laxmi filed a PIL highlighting issues such as the easy availability of acid, inadequate legal provisions for acid attack cases, lack of support for expenses, surgeries, and rehabilitation of acid attack survivors.

Issues Raised

• For significant changes in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 concerning Acid attacks.
• Absolute prohibition on the sale of acid and its various forms, ensuring these acids are not easily accessible over the counter.
• Legal action against individuals who commit acid attacks and the support and rehabilitation of acid attack survivors, encompassing medical care and financial compensation.

Arguments Advanced

• The petitioner vocally opposed the unrestricted sale of acids, emphasizing its easy availability.
• She highlighted the extensive mental, emotional, and physical anguish resulting from her acid attack.
• She appealed to the government for rehabilitation support.
• The petitioner advocated for more stringent laws specific to acid attacks, criticizing existing laws for their generic approach.
• She urged for complimentary medical treatment and compensation for acid attack survivors.
• The solicitor general announced the imminent enforcement of new regulations by the Central Government.
• These regulations focus on governing the sale of acids and other corrosive substances, aligning with the Poisons Act of 1919 across all states and union territories.
• The rules will dictate the permissible storage and sale conditions of various types of acids for specific entities like educational institutions, hospitals, and government departments.
• The state counsel for Tamil Nadu committed to implementing stricter laws within two months to monitor acid sales.
• State and union territories authorities pledged to make violations under the Poisons Act 1919 non-cognizable and non-bailable offenses.

Significance of the Judgment

• Following this judgment, significant orders were issued to improve conditions for acid attack survivors.
• Meetings were conducted with high-ranking officials from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, along with chief secretaries from all states in India, to gather data on acid attack cases nationwide.
• An analysis of the compiled data revealed a high number of acid attacks in states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat, with Delhi being the sole Union territory where such atrocities were recorded.
• An amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 introduced section 357-A, which focused on compensating victims or their dependents, establishing a fund to aid those affected by acid attacks, and facilitating their rehabilitation.
• Changes were made to the Indian Penal Code,1860, with the addition of sections 326-A and 326-B specifically addressing acid attacks.
• A victim compensation scheme was implemented across all states and union territories in India.
• Further amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code led to the inclusion of section 357C, mandating that all hospitals, whether public or private, operated by central, state, or local authorities, provide free initial medical treatment to acid attack victims.
• The Supreme Court ordered a minimum compensation of ₹3,00,000 for every acid attack victim in all states and union territories.
• State governments imposed bans on the sale of acid, categorizing it as a "poison" to restrict its availability.
• The government, in collaboration with legal services authorities, initiated a victim compensation scheme to ensure that all acid attack survivors could access support.
• Hospitals and clinics were prohibited from denying treatment to acid attack victims, with legal recourse available for any violations.
• Despite humble beginnings, this case sparked significant legal changes that redefined the punishment for acid attacks in India, offering hope and compensation to victims and survivors.
• Laxmi's activism continues to inspire individuals worldwide, shedding light on the gender bias prevalent in acid attacks and advocating for justice and empowerment, especially for women.
• Laxmi's case serves as a reminder of the urgent need for stringent measures to prevent such gruesome crimes and associated attacks fueled by trivial disputes.
• Her impactful journey not only empowered her but also motivated countless others to speak out against injustice, transforming victims into resilient advocates for change and awareness.

Present Status of the Judgment

Still applicable.