LAXMI V UNION OF INDIA (LANDMARK JUDGMENT) – A CASE ANALYSIS

Author: Grace Deebthee John
                                                              

 CONTENTS
•INTRODUCTION
•BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
•ISSUES RAISED
•LAW RELATED TO THE CASE
•FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
•FAQs

INTRODUCTION


Any act of hurling acid at someone can be considered an acid attack. “Any act of throwing of acid on a person with an intention to cause hurt” is the definition of acid attack given by the Indian judiciary, but there is no legal meaning for the term. The wrong acid attack was not included by the Indian Penal Code, 1860, until the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013. Therefore, it is not possible to classify an improper acid assault as a crime.


The victim is subjected to lifetime discrimination by society. Additionally impacted are their psychological, social, and financial situations. Because of the deformities caused by the acid assault, the victims are unable to work and cannot exist in society. Some victims experience emotional breakdowns as a result of being abandoned by their own family.
Permanent body disfigurement is one of the long-term effects of an acid attack. The victim’s life is drastically altered in a single day, and their loved ones begin to despise them. They are also condemned by society for their awful appearances, which makes life extremely difficult for them and also impacts their social, psychological, and professional opportunities.


BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
When Laxmi, the petitioner in this case, was fifteen years old, she was attacked with acid. She used to help her parents out financially by working at a book depot. Three men attacked her by hurling acid at her on the streets of Delhi on April 22, 2005. She declined to marry a man named Naeem Khan, also known as Guddu, therefore this was an act of retaliation for her refusal to accept the marriage proposal. Her medical report revealed that she had about 25% acid burns on the upper body, including the face, chest, eyes, and other areas, after she was admitted to Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital.
Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) and Section 120B (Punishment related to criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were used by the sessions court to convict the defendant. The accused continued by arguing that the lower court’s decision was incorrect in an appeal filed with the Delhi High Court. Later, the accused was granted bail by the Delhi High Court. As neither the IPC nor the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) contained any particular legislation or provisions that penalized acid attacks, the petitioner was granted recourse under the IPC.


ISSUES RAISED
1. For making considerable amendment in the Indian Penal Code,1860 and Criminal Procedure code, 1973 relating to Acid attacks.
2. A complete ban on the sale of acid and its various forms also such acids should not be available over the counter.
3. Prosecution of acid throwers as well as the rehabilitation of acid attack victim which included treatment as well as compensation.


LAWS RELATED TO THE CASE
Amendments added to Indian Penal Code for 326A AND 326B
Section 326A – “ Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.
Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns 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.”
Section 326B – “Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid.


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 burns 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.”


“Explanation 1.—For the purposes of Section 326-A and this section, “acid” includes 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.” “Explanation 2.—For the purposes of Section 326-A and this section, permanent or partial damage or deformity shall not be required to be irreversible.”


Amendment to the CrPC: Section 357-A was added and spoke about the victim compensation scheme. It said that the state government along with the central government had to co-ordinate to award compensation to the victims and their dependents.


Amendment to the Indian Evidence Act: Section 114B was added: “Presumption as to acid attack- If a person has thrown acid on, or administered acid to another person the court shall presume that such an act has been done with the intention of causing, or with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause such hurt or injury as is mentioned in Section 326A of Indian Penal Code”.


FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
The petition was brought before the court since acid is a drug that many people use frequently and is readily available in labs, medical facilities, and other places. The acid is sold in local stores for a pittance of Rs 20–25. Because of its low cost and ease of access, the acid had a significant potential for abuse, therefore controlling its distribution was crucial.


This appeal was made since the penal codes did not provide a distinct offense for acid attacks. Up until 2013, there was an increase in acid attacks, and victims could not receive compensation through the appropriate channels. Sections of the IPC were used to charge acid attacks.
Therefore, rules pertaining to acid attacks that offered just compensation and harsh punishment were desperately needed.


This pleading was brought up by the petitioner because she was not given the appropriate compensation. Sections of the CrPC did not provide sufficient compensation for the medical costs she incurred. The physical damages were more than the compensation, and improved compensation and improvised rehabilitation plans were required due to the rise in acid assaults.


The entire issue was given careful consideration by the SCI, who also offered some observations. In order to make significant changes to the current situation of acid attacks, the victims’ care, and their recompense, the court carefully considered the petitioner’s three pleas.
Regarding the first issue, the SCI instructed the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to call a meeting of the administrators of the Union Territories and the chief secretaries of the state governments in question to discuss the implementation of appropriate regulations for the selling of acid in the states and union territories.


The SCI issued a set of guidelines to be adhered to until the states and union territories stopped regulating the sale of acids and other caustic materials and guaranteed its continued operation:
1. The sale of acid over the counter is strictly forbidden unless the vendor keeps a log or register documenting the transaction, which includes the quantity sold as well as the information of the person or people to whom the acid is/are sold. The address of the person to whom it is sold must be included in the log or register.
2. “All sellers are only allowed to sell acid after the buyer presents: (a) a government-issued photo ID with the buyer’s address; (b) a statement outlining the purchase’s justification.”
3. “The seller must notify the relevant Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of all acid stocks within   15 days.”
4. “No acid shall be sold to anyone under the age of eighteen.”
5. “The SDM in question may confiscate the stock and appropriately fine the seller up to Rs 50,000 in the event of an undeclared acid stock.”
The SDM in question has the authority to punish anyone who violates any of the aforementioned directives up to Rs 50,000.
“Requirements for keeping and storing acid must be adhered to by educational institutions, research labs, hospitals, government agencies, and public sector undertaking departments:”
1. “A register of acid usage must be kept up to date and submitted to the relevant SDM.”
2. “Anyone who has acid on their property and keeps it safe will be held accountable.”
3. “This person will be in charge of the acid storage, and students and staff leaving the labs or storage location where acid is used will be subject to mandatory inspections.”
“The SDM in question will be responsible for taking the necessary action in the event that the aforementioned directives are broken, defaulted upon, or violated.”


The Laxmi case and subsequent acid attack cases depended on the modifications. By implementing the changes, the steadily increasing number of acid attack cases could be reduced. The most crucial move was to restrict the sale of acids over-the-counter at minimal costs. Another crucial step was to create new legislation specifically for victims of acid assaults. Via Laxmi’s PIL and her pleas, the SCI acknowledged the need for a suitable law regarding acid attacks.
The court rendered its final decision after taking into account her requests as well as Articles 21, 14, 15, and 32 of the Indian Constitution.


JUDGMENT
The SCI announced a compensation of at least Rs 3, 00,000 to be paid by the state government to the victim where Rs One Lakh is supposed to be paid immediately within 15 days of the occurrence of the incident or (being brought to the attention and notice of the state government/UT) and the next Two Lakhs within two months, as expeditiously as possible.
Adequate victim care: Private hospitals must be mandated to offer victims free care. The state government must step in and make the necessary arrangements if they decline to offer free service.
No hospital has the right to deny care on the grounds that it lacks specialized facilities.
The person has to receive first assistance, and once stabilized, they should be transferred to a specific facility for additional care.
Section 357C of the CrPC allows for action against the hospital for refusing treatment.

Prohibiting the sale of acid nationwide: Each state government or union territory must carry out this measure at the state level.


CONCLUSION


Acid attacks, which frequently target vulnerable groups in society, are among the most heinous acts of violence. Notwithstanding the introduction of important legal reforms, such as Sections 326A and 326B of the IPC and the control of acid sales, difficulties with victim rehabilitation and enforcement still exist. Legal actions in seminal cases such as Laxmi v. Union of India have established robust standards for victim assistance and restitution. However, in order to eliminate this threat from society, extensive rehabilitation efforts, public awareness campaigns, and the efficient application of legislation are essential.
This case brought in difference and amendment to laws regulating harsh punishment to the wrongdoer and has also paved a way so as to register new cases of such crime. The amendment brings with it protection for women by the new guidelines of the case.


FAQS


1. What is the definition of acid attack?
Any act of throwing acid on a person with the intention to cause hurt is considered an acid attack.


2. What led to the Laxmi v. Union of India case?
Laxmi, a 15-year-old girl, was attacked with acid by three men in 2005 as an act of revenge for rejecting a marriage proposal.


3. What changes were made to the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after the case?
Sections 326A and 326B were added to the IPC, making acid attacks a specific offense with harsher punishments.


4. What guidelines were issued by the Supreme Court to regulate the sale of acid?
The Supreme Court issued guidelines to regulate the sale of acid, including maintaining a register of sales, verifying buyer’s identity, and restricting sale to minors.


5. What compensation was ordered by the Supreme Court for acid attack victims?
The Supreme Court ordered a compensation of at least Rs 3,00,000 to be paid by the state government to the victim.


6. What are the responsibilities of private hospitals in treating acid attack victims?
Private hospitals are mandated to provide free treatment to acid attack victims, and the state government must ensure that arrangements are made for their treatment.


7. What is the significance of the Laxmi v. Union of India case?
The case led to significant changes in laws regulating acid attacks, providing harsher punishments for perpetrators and better compensation and rehabilitation for victims.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *