CASE NAME	Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 571
CITATION	(2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 143, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1281
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice C. Nagappan and Justice M.Y. Eqbal
PETITIONER	Parivartan Kendra
RESPONDENT	Union of India and Others
DECIDED ON	7th December 2015

INTRODUCTION

The serious problem of acid attacks and the state’s duty to assist and rehabilitate victims are at the heart of the Parivartan Kendra & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors case, which the Supreme Court of India decided on December 7, 2015. The petitioners, an activist and the non-governmental organization Parivartan Kendra, raised awareness to the suffering of two Dalit sisters from Bihar who were brutally attacked with acid on the evening of October 21, 2012. The terrible attack occurred when the sisters were sleeping on their rooftop, and it was the culmination of the attackers’ ongoing harassment and sexual overtures towards the older sister, who was a budding computer engineer. 

The petitioners emphasized the insufficiency of compensation and rehabilitation programs for survivors of acid attacks, the institutional shortcomings in delivering prompt medical attention, and the delay in catching the offenders. They argued that victims’ physical, psychological, and socioeconomic difficulties could not be adequately addressed by the current judicial system and its application. 

The Supreme Court recognized in its ruling the serious effects of acid attacks on victims’ lives, including the need for ongoing medical care, the shame associated with the incident, and the difficulties in living a regular life. The Court ordered the state to increase compensation sums to better support victims’ rehabilitation and underlined the necessity of strictly adhering to rules set down in earlier instances, such as Laxmi v. Union of India. In particular, the Court gave the older sister ₹10 lahks and the younger sister ₹3 lahks, highlighting the idea that the previously set minimum compensation should be viewed as a starting point and that governments should be encouraged to offer larger sums depending on the particulars of each case. 

This case emphasizes the judiciary’s role in bolstering the state’s obligation to safeguard people against gender-based violence and to provide all-encompassing support networks for survivors, thereby preserving their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights to life and dignity.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner draws attention to the predicament of two Bihari Dalit girls who were resting on their rooftops when they were attacked by four attackers at midnight on October 21, 2012, who splashed acid on their faces and bodies. These youthful attackers are accused of harassing the older sister while she was working or attending computer classes at the market, on the streets, and in the autorickshaw. This victim, who used to routinely attend college and work as a daily wage laborer to support her family, aspired to become a computer engineer. Nevertheless, these attackers would yank her dupatta, make crude remarks, and make sexual advances. They tormented her and her family members by riding their motorcycles about her home, tearing the curtains, and threatening to damage and ruin her face if she did not comply with their demands and consent to have sex with them. 

Anil Rai, Ghanshyam Rai, Badal, and Raja came onto the roof while both sisters were asleep at the aforementioned midnight. Anil covered the elder sister’s mouth to prevent her from screaming, and Ghanshyam and Raja held her legs to prevent her from moving. As Anil Rai poured the acid on her face and body, it spilled onto her sister’s body, burning her arm. These men intended to stay and savor the moment after the attack, so they made no attempt to leave. The girls began to scream and weep as the acid began to burn them, waking their parents, who hurried to the rooftop. This caused the attackers to run away. The Patna Medical College and Hospital was the first place the victims were taken to. The petitioner claims that the family had to purchase all of the medications on their own and that the doctors did not provide them with adequate care when they came the following morning. The Bihar government then provided the victims’ families with Rs. 2,42,000 to treat both of them. The petitioner has argued that more than Rs. 5 lakhs had already been spent on the victims’ treatment up until the filing of this writ suit, and that additional treatment is still needed.

 ISSUES RAISED

Whether there is a limit on the compensation paid to the acid attack victim?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

• The petitioner has argued that the victim did not receive appropriate and sufficient care. The Patna Hospital took over a month to perform the grafting procedures on the older sister. The older sister underwent three grafting procedures. The victim and their family were allegedly abused by the hospital staff and doctors because they were from a lower caste, and all three surgeries were allegedly not done correctly. 
• Since the survivors are unable to leave their homes due to their disfigurements, the petitioner argues that the States’ inability to offer compensation under Survivor Compensation Schemes has resulted in their isolation from all facets of society. The Rs. 3 lakh compensation does not fully cover the costs spent by the victim of an acid assault. 
• In addition, the petitioner argues that the Union of India has not created any uniform management and treatment protocols, public health facilities, etc., to treat victims of acid attacks. 
• For acid attack survivors, the petitioner has called for the creation of a comprehensive rehabilitation program that includes accommodation, education, and jobs.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• The respondents contended that the state had taken all required actions to support the victims of the acid attack, including filing a formal complaint, charging the defendant, and paying damages in accordance with the law. They argued that procedural issues, not willful carelessness, were to blame for the delay in catching the offenders and paying the compensation. The responders also underlined that initiatives were underway to guarantee improved enforcement of the law and rehabilitation programs for victims of acid attacks.

JUDGMENT

Given the unusual circumstances of the case, victim Chanchal should receive a larger payout than what this Court has mandated in the Laxmi case. It should be mentioned that this Court does not prohibit the Government from providing compensation up to Rs. 3 lakhs in Laxmi’s case. According to Laxmi’s case guidelines, the State may choose to give the victim of an acid attack additional compensation. It should be noted that this Court has not placed any restrictions on Laxmi’s case about the extent of the victim’s injuries from the acid attack. In this particular situation, the victim’s father has already spent over Rs. 5 lakhs on the victim’s care. The victim (Chanchal) should receive at least Rs. 10 lakhs in compensation, taking into account the extent of the injury, the cost of grafting and reconstructive surgery, the physical and emotional suffering, etc. To put it simply, the victim’s incapacity to live a full life and enjoy the amenities that the acid assault has deprived her of must be considered in addition to the physical harm when determining the appropriate amount of compensation. As a result, this Court believes it is appropriate to grant a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. Accordingly, the Court ordered the concerned Government to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the victim Chanchal, and we order the concerned State Government of Bihar to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the main victim’s sister, Sonam, in light of the ruling in Laxmi’s case. The victim and her family will receive Rs. 5 lakhs of the Rs. 13 lakh total within a month, and the victims will receive the remaining Rs. 8 lakhs within three months of the date of this ruling. Additionally, in accordance with the guidelines established in Laxmi’s case, the State will assume complete responsibility for the rehabilitation and treatment of acid attack victims on its own.

CONCLUSION

Systemic shortcomings in responding to acid attacks and guaranteeing justice for survivors are brought to light in the Parivartan Kendra & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors lawsuit. The Supreme Court examined the ineffective implementation of policies outlined in previous seminal judgments, including Laxmi v. Union of India, for the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of victims. The Court underlined the state’s constitutional duty to defend acid attack survivors’ rights, especially Article 21’s right to life and dignity.

The ruling highlighted the state apparatus’s weak response, which included inadequate cash compensation, delayed medical assistance, and shoddy criminal justice procedural execution. The Court’s decision to increase the compensation amount sent a clear message that victims’ lifetime trauma and difficulties cannot be adequately addressed by the minimum amount of compensation that is required. It also reaffirmed the necessity of taking proactive measures to guarantee accountability for such horrible acts and fortify the legal system in order to improve victim assistance and prevention.

The socioeconomic vulnerabilities of the victims, especially those from impoverished groups, were further highlighted by this case. In order for survivors to live honorable lives, the Court emphasized the necessity of comprehensive rehabilitation that includes medical care, psychological assistance, and socioeconomic reintegration.

In acknowledging and resolving the predicament of acid attack victims in India, the ruling in Parivartan Kendra & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors represents a significant advancement. The Supreme Court aimed to fix loopholes in the justice delivery system by granting increased compensation and upholding current rules. The case emphasizes the judiciary’s responsibility to hold the government responsible, encourage policies that deter such crimes, and provide strong support networks for survivors. In order to uphold the constitutional duty of equality and dignity for all people, it advocates for more stringent legal enforcement, greater public awareness, and persistent attempts to rehabilitate victims.