The Allahabad High Court converted a Public Interest Litigation originally filed in 2014 concerning the regulation and restriction of acid sales in Uttar Pradesh into a suo moto proceeding after the original petitioner, Anubhav Verma, expressed his lack of inclination to pursue the litigation further. The Division Bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran permitted the petitioner to withdraw his plea but refused to dismiss the petition. The Bench observed that allowing a genuine PIL to be withdrawn at the petitioner’s volition could defeat the interest of justice, particularly because public interest litigation is not purely adversarial in nature, and therefore, the matter warranted continued judicial oversight rather than termination. Consequently, the Court directed its Registry to maintain the cause and re-register the proceedings as a suo moto petition, ensuring the issues raised would continue to receive judicial scrutiny. Advocates Akansha Mishra and Utkarshini Singh were appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in this significant matter, emphasizing the importance of the legal questions involved in the regulation of acid sales.
The PIL at the center of the dispute was initially lodged to enforce directives from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Laxmi Vs. Union of India, which mandated that states frame rules governing the possession and sale of acid and formulate schemes for victim compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In an August 2014 order, the High Court had critically examined the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014, particularly Clause 4, which appeared to restrict compensation eligibility to situations where the offender was not traced or identified. The Court had objected to this potentially restrictive interpretation, holding that there was no justification for excluding compensation where the offender was identified, as this could unduly limit the remedy available to victims of acid attacks. The Court had directed the State to revisit and amend the clause to ensure that compensation remedies were sufficiently accessible to victims irrespective of whether an offender was traced, arguing that such limitations could conflict with the pursuit of justice.
The High Court in 2014 also addressed the quantum of compensation provided under the State’s scheme, suggesting that the State Government reconsider whether a compensation amount of three lakh rupees would adequately meet the ends of justice in all acid attack cases, given the likelihood of repeated surgeries, ongoing medical treatment, and long-term rehabilitation needs for victims. The Court noted that the practical realities faced by acid attack survivors, including the extensive physical and psychological impact, required careful consideration in formulating compensation amounts to truly address their rehabilitation and recovery.
During the pendency of the original petition, the State Government had notified the Uttar Pradesh Poisons (Possession and Sale) Rules, 2014. However, the High Court had cautioned that mere framing of rules was insufficient on its own. The Court had emphasized that effective and strict enforcement of these rules by the State Government was crucial to preventing the sale of poisonous substances, including acid. The 2014 order stressed that legislative or regulatory measures without proper implementation mechanisms would fall short of achieving the intended objective of regulating acid sales and reducing the incidence of acid attacks.
The Bench’s decision in the present proceedings underscored a concern that simply allowing the petitioner to withdraw would undermine the broader public interest dimensions of the case. The Court’s insistence on continuing the matter suo moto reflects an acknowledgment that the issues raised go beyond the interests of a single litigant, affecting public safety and regulatory frameworks for hazardous substances. By re-registering the case as a suo moto petition, the Court has taken on the role of ensuring continued judicial engagement with the substantive issues, recognizing that acid sale regulation and associated victim compensation mechanisms remain areas requiring oversight and potential intervention.
The appointment of Amicus Curiae in the suo moto proceedings demonstrates the Court’s intention to gather informed perspectives and legal assistance, facilitating a comprehensive examination of the issues at hand. This step ensures that the Court has expert support to navigate complex legal and policy questions related to acid regulation, compliance with Supreme Court mandates, and the adequacy of existing legal frameworks to protect vulnerable populations. Through its order, the Court signaled its commitment to upholding the overarching principles of justice, particularly where public interest and welfare intersect with regulatory and statutory obligations of the State.
The transition of the 2014 PIL into a suo moto case highlights the judiciary’s proactive stance in matters of significant societal impact. It illustrates the High Court’s readiness to step in and address concerns of public interest even when original litigants choose to disengage, affirming the judiciary’s role as a guardian of public rights and welfare. The continuation of the case is poised to revisit substantive issues about how acid is regulated within the State and how victims of acid-related crimes are compensated under existing legal frameworks, with the Court positioned to scrutinize both legislative measures and their enforcement to ensure alignment with broader judicial directives and protective legal principles.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.