The ball’s in the Centre’s court

The Supreme Court’s interim order on acid attack survivor Laxmi’s seven-year-old public interest litigation is a welcome development. However, the Centre’s proposal to regulate the sale and purchase of acid is unconvincing and comes when the court had virtually threatened to impose a ban on the sale of acids. Albeena Shakil writes.

The Supreme Court’s interim order on acid attack survivor Laxmi’s seven-year-old public interest litigation is a welcome development.

HT Image

Last week, the court asked the states to pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation to victims, of which Rs 1 lakh must be paid within 15 days of the incident; a photo ID card with residential address will be a must for acid buyers and sellers and the illegal sale of acid will be a non-bailable offence.

The order, however, is constrained by the response of the Centre in court. The Centre’s proposal to regulate the sale and purchase of acid is unconvincing and comes at a time when the court had virtually threatened to impose a ban on the sale of acids.

The government’s stand in court appears motivated by a desire to prevent the ban. However, the SC has also said that it may consider a ban if the proposed policy is not devised along with state governments within a time frame and implemented seriously.

While the compensation part is a welcome move, the court did not say anything about the medical treatment of the victims. The two should be seen as two separate categories because the recurring costs of treatment either ruin families or force them to abandon survivors. By the time the next hearing takes place, the government must undertake the responsibility of treatment including corrective surgeries as well as comprehensive counselling for survivors and their families.

Moreover, the court did not say anything on rehabilitation and we would know about this aspect at a later stage. Victims must either get jobs or monetary help for self-employment or social security for those who are not in a position to work. It is also necessary that all survivors are included within this purview.

The issues at stake are high. In matters of crimes against women, the government has operated in the framework of responding post-facto rather than taking the responsibility of preventing crimes. By compelling the government to take responsibility for prevention, as well as accept responsibility for compensation, treatment and rehabilitation in event of failure to prevent an attack, this public interest litigation may just lead to a paradigm shift in the debate.

Through its interim order, the SC has applied some balm on the survivors but it is the Centre that has to move forward much faster.

Albeena Shakil teaches English at Bharati College, Delhi University, and is a women’s rights activist.

The views expressed by the author are personal