New Delhi -°C
Today in New Delhi, India

Feb 20, 2020-Thursday



Select city

Metro cities - Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata

Other cities - Noida, Gurgaon, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Bhopal , Chandigarh , Dehradun, Indore, Jaipur, Lucknow, Patna, Ranchi

Home / Lucknow / Acid attacks issue: HC seeks reply from centre, state govt

Acid attacks issue: HC seeks reply from centre, state govt

lucknow Updated: Jan 13, 2020 23:13 IST
HT Correspondent
HT Correspondent

Taking a serious note of the issue of acid attacks, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has sought a reply from the central and the state governments at the earliest on a plea pertaining to compliance of the directions issued by the apex court to regulate the sale and distribution of acid. The directives were given looking at the acid attacks by criminals.

The court directed the respondents – the chief secretary UP, principal secretary home, central secretary for home and central secretary for medical health – to file counter affidavits (reply) at the earliest, listing the case for January 31.

The court directed the respondents to ensure compliance of the directions issued by the governments.

The order was passed by a division bench comprising chief justice Govind Mathur and justice Chandra Dhari Singh on January 10 on a PIL filed by Chhanv Foundation through its director Ashish Shukla.

Petitioner’s counsel Prince Lenin submitted that in Uttar Pradesh, though several directions had been issued by the government with regard to acid sale but those had not been complied with.

For instance, he has referred to the letter dated May 10, 2016, wherein all district magistrates, senior superintendents of police and superintendents of police in the state were directed by the home secretary UP, to regulate the sale of acid as per the directions given in the government order dated August 16, 2013, and further to upload the steps taken by 7 th day of every month. He asserted that most DMs / SSPs / SPs were either not adhering to the directions given in the said letter or were just performing formalities. Central and the state governments were represented through their counsel.

“Having considered the facts stated above, we deem it appropriate to call upon the respondents to file a counter affidavit to the petition at the earliest,” the court ordered, listing the case on January 31.