Acid attacks: SC fiat to Centre, states on sale of acid

July 2, 2012

acid

New Delhi, July 2: The Supreme Court today asked the Centre to apprise it of their measures to regulate the sale of acid to prevent its misuse as a weapon, particularly against women by their jilted lovers.

The court sought a "comprehensive affidavit" from the Ministry of Home Affairs, which was asked to "consider proper action" for making appropriate provision for "regulation of sale of acids so that it is not easily or readily available to offenders."

A bench of justices R M Lodha and A R Dave also asked all the state governments and Union territories to file their replies to the notices issued to them on February 11, 2011 for restricting the sale of acid to prevent the growing incidents of attack on women with it.

The court on April 29 this year had asked the Union Home Ministry to coordinate with the various states and the Union territories for formulation of an appropriate scheme.

The apex court had also sought the responses of the Centre and the state governments on whether any suitable scheme can be prepared by them to provide adequate compensation to the victims for their treatment and rehabilitation.

The court's directions came during the hearing of a PIL, filed in 2006 by Laxmi, a minor girl whose arms, face and other body parts were disfigured in an acid attack.

Laxmi, through her counsel Aparna Bhat, had sought framing of a new law or amendment in the existing criminal laws like IPC, Indian Evidence Act and the CrPC for dealing with the offence and had also sought compensation.

Luxmi was subjected to acid attack by three youths near Tughlaq Road as she had refused to marry one of them. The trial is going on for the offence of attempt to murder and two of the accused are out on bail.

The Centre had earlier told the apex court that the report of the Law Commission on the issue was supplied to all concerned parties and the National Commission for Women has placed a draft legislation to make acid attack a serious offence.

The advocate had pleaded for a total ban of sale of acid as there were increasing number of incidents of such attacks on women in different states.

The counsel had submitted that even a small country like Bangladesh had banned the use of acid to prevent such attacks.

The apex court in its February 11, 2011 order had noted that during the pendency of this writ petition, the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been amended and Section 357A has been inserted by Act 5 of 2009.

It also noted that the amendment requires every state government, in coordination with the Central government, to prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victims or their dependants who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.

"Though the said section has come into effect on December 31, 2009 and more than a year has elapsed, we are informed that no schemes have been formulated by any of the state governments," the bench had noted in its order.

While issuing notices to the Centre and state governments in February 2011, the court had directed them to prepare schemes as provided in Section 357A for the purpose of providing compensation to victims of crimes, in particular, acid attack victims.


Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 15,2024

amitshah.jpg

Union minister Amit Shah on Friday, November 15, said PM Narendra Modi will amend the Waqf Act despite opposition from leaders like Uddhav Thackeray and Sharad Pawar.

"Modi ji wants to change the Waqf Board law, but Uddhav ji, Sharad Pawar and Supriya Sule are opposing it," Shah said, addressing a rally at Umarkhed in Maharashtra's Yavatmal district.

"Uddhav ji, listen carefully, you all can protest as much as you want, but Modi ji will amend the Waqf Act," he said. Shah said there are two camps in the November 20 Maharashtra assembly polls, one of 'Pandavas' represented by the BJP-led Mahayuti and the other of 'Kauravas' represented by Maha Vikas Aghadi.

"Uddhav Thackeray claims that his Shiv Sena is the real one. Can the real Shiv Sena go against renaming Aurangabad to Sambhajinagar? Can the real Shiv Sena go against renaming Ahmednagar to Ahilyanagar? The real Shiv Sena stands with the BJP," Shah said.

"Rahul Baba used to say that his government would credit money in the accounts of the people instantly. You were unable to fulfil your promises in Himachal, Karnataka, and Telangana," he said.

Shah said the Mahayuti alliance has promised that women will get Rs 2,100 per month under the Ladki Bahin Yojana. "Kashmir is an integral part of India and no power in the world can snatch it away from us," Shah said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.