New Delhi, March 9 The Supreme Court on Monday directed all high courts to set timelines for trial courts to ensure the speedy conclusion of acid attack cases across the country.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the status reports submitted by several high courts regarding the pendency and current status of acid attack cases, and stated that a more proactive approach was needed.
The Chief Justice asked the high courts to entrust the task of monitoring trials in acid attack cases to the high court judges who are in charge of the trial courts.
The Supreme Court granted all states one last opportunity to follow its directions issued on a PIL filed by Shaheen Malik, who is herself a survivor of an acid attack.
The Chief Justice asked the states to urgently address the issue of providing adequate compensation to victims of acid attacks.
The bench also questioned Shaheen Malik about the status of her personal acid attack case.
She stated that the accused was acquitted by the Rohini trial court, and an appeal against the acquittal has been filed in the Delhi High Court.
Malik urged the Chief Justice to ask senior advocate Siddharth Luthra to represent her in the High Court.
"We request senior advocate Siddharth Luthra to represent the appellant in the Delhi High Court pro bono," the bench ordered.
The senior advocate agreed and offered his services, assuring the Chief Justice that he would represent her in the High Court.
In another case involving an acid attack survivor, the Supreme Court transferred the criminal trial from a court in Bhiwani, Haryana, to Saket in Delhi, considering the victim's serious medical condition and the difficulties she faces in participating in the proceedings.
The Chief Justice noted that the victim suffered severe injuries, including damage to one of her eyes, and is currently undergoing treatment at a private hospital here.
The bench directed the Haryana government to transfer the accused from a jail in Bhiwani to Tihar Central Jail in Delhi, stating that given the circumstances, it would be nearly impossible for the victim to effectively participate in the trial if it continued in Haryana.
While dealing with Malik’s PIL, the bench on January 27 emphasized "extraordinary" punitive measures for those convicted in acid attack cases.
It directed the Centre to consider amending the law to sternly deal with such cases, similar to those involving dowry deaths, where the onus of proving innocence lies on the accused.
The top court also asked all states and Union territories to provide details, including the number of acid attack cases, their status in courts, as well as rehabilitation measures to support the victims.
It also asked states and UTs to provide information about the number of cases where chargesheets have been filed in trial courts.
The PIL sought to expand the definition of "disabled persons" under the law to ensure that victims who suffered life-threatening damage to their internal organs due to forced ingestion of acid receive adequate compensation and other reliefs, including medical care.
The bench asked Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, representing the Centre, that some legislative intervention might be necessary from the Centre to make the punishment stringent.
The Chief Justice also suggested reversing the onus of proof, similar to dowry death cases. "Think of some legislative intervention...this is not less serious than dowry death," he said.
Issuing certain directions, the bench gave states and UTs four weeks to provide information about the number of appeals filed in appellate courts, including high courts, in acid attack cases.
The bench asked them to also provide brief details of each victim, her educational qualifications, employment status, marital status, and medical treatment and expenses incurred or to be incurred.
It also asked states and UTs to provide details of rehabilitation schemes for such victims.
The bench also asked them to provide details of cases where victims are forced to ingest acid.
Earlier, the bench had called for reports from all high courts regarding the pendency of acid attack cases.
So far, 15 high courts have furnished details of pending acid attack cases. According to the details, Uttar Pradesh has 198 pending cases, West Bengal has 60, Gujarat has 114, Bihar has 68, and Maharashtra has 58.
The bench took note of the reports and asked high courts to consider issuing directions on the administrative side for expeditious disposal of trials on an out-of-turn and time-bound basis.
It also asked all state legal services authorities to submit details of any schemes implemented for rehabilitation, compensation, and medical aid to acid attack victims.
On December 4 last year, the bench termed tardy trials in acid attack cases as a "mockery of the system" and directed all high courts to submit details of such pending cases across the country within four weeks.
It had issued notices to the Centre and the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities on the PIL, requesting that victims be categorized as persons with disabilities to ensure access to welfare schemes.