2016 Global Review of Constitutional Law

forced display of the National Flag and the
Anthem is required for the same.
Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India
[(2016) 3 SCC 571]
This decision was passed in a public interest
litigation filed by an NGO, Parivartan Kendra,
seeking compensation and redress for two
Dalit sisters, Chanchal and Sonam, who fell
victim to a brutal acid attack. The two sisters
were not given adequate treatment after the
acid attack and were ill-treated at the hospital
due to their caste. It was only after they
were taken to Delhi that they received adequate
treatment. The PIL sought directions
from the Supreme Court that would help secure
justice, compensation, and dignity for
all acid attack survivors, including the development
of a rehabilitation scheme and an
increase in compensation to victims of acid
attacks. It also sought that acid attacks be
included as an offense within the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Allowing the petition, the judges referred to
directions given by the Supreme Court in a
previous decision on compensation for victims
of acid attacks in Laxmi v. The Union
of India, 29 in which the Supreme Court, in
addition to banning the over-the-counter
sale of acid, had also directed that State
governments provide a minimum amount of
Rs. 3 Lakhs as compensation to each acid
attack victim under Victim Compensation
Schemes. While the Supreme Court in the
present case acknowledged that there was
no proper implementation of regulations or
control for the supply and distribution of
acid, it did not issue further guidelines in this
regard. It focused on compensation and held
that Laxmi mandated only a minimum compensation
of Rs.3 Lakhs. The State government
has the discretion, however, to provide
more compensation to the victim in the case
of acid attack as per the guidelines.
In the instant case, considering the expenses
already incurred by the victims’ family, the
Court directed that Chanchal be paid compensation
of Rs. 10,00,000/- and her sister be
paid compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- by the
State government and further that the State
government be responsible for their entire
treatment and rehabilitation. This compensation
was awarded not only regarding the
physical injury but also considering the victim’s
inability to lead and enjoy wholesome
lives because of the acid attack. In addition
to the increased compensation, the Supreme
Court passed a few general directions:
a. State governments should take up the
matter with all private hospitals in their
States to not refuse but provide full
treatment to acid attack victims, including
medicines, food, and reconstructive
surgeries.
b. Hospitals should issue certificates that
the person is a victim of an acid attack
so that she may get benefits of schemes
for reconstructive surgeries and compensation.
This judgment of the Court was progressive
in stressing the plight of acid attack victims
to justify the need for enhanced compensation.
It tried to highlight the social stigma
that victims face, the difficulty they have in
obtaining employment, and the tremendous
medical expenses they incur towards the
lifelong treatment of their injuries. The Supreme
Court stated that such enhancement
of compensation will not only help the victim
secure medical treatment but will also
motivate the State to strictly implement the
guidelines so that acid attacks are prevented
in the future.
In an important direction, the Supreme
Court also directed all States to take steps
to include acid attack victims’ names on the
disability list. This recognizes the life-long
consequences that acid attack victims face,
as was effectively pointed out by the Court,
and would also enable them to rights and entitlements
under the law relating to persons
with disabilities.
Devika Biswas v. Union of India [AIR 2016
SC 4405]
Devika Biswas was an activist who filed this
petition after a mass sterilization camp in
the Araria District of Bihar. The camp was
carried out on January 7, 2012, by a single
surgeon where 53 women were operated on
within the period of just two hours from 8 pm
to 10 pm, in a school. The women were operated
on atop school desks by the surgeon, who
used just a single set of gloves with the aid
of only a torch-light, and without the facility
of running water. There was no provision of
pre-operative and post-operative care, or even
counseling, that would inform the women of
the permanent nature of sterilization or its side
effects. The petition also reported on many
other sterilization camps that had taken place
in other States where none of the procedures
laid down by the government were followed.
Devika Biswas asked for a series of directions
including the setting up of a committee to investigate
the facts relating to this sterilization
camp and to initiate departmental and criminal
proceedings against those involved. She
also prayed that the government guidelines be
scrupulously adhered to so that such incidents
do not recur in any part of the country and that
additional compensation will be paid to the
women. The PIL highlighted the conduct of
mass sterilization in highly unsanitary conditions
in the States of Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Chattisgarh, and Rajasthan.
The Supreme Court relied on the case of
Ramakant Rai (I) and Anr. v. Union of India
and Ors, 30 in which it had prescribed detailed
guidelines and procedures to be adhered to
in the conduct of sterilizations. The Court
directed the Union government during the
hearings to report on the implementation of
each direction given in Ramakant Rai and
the details of the utilization of funds under
the Family Planning Indemnity Scheme,
2013. The various State governments were
also asked to file affidavits that explained the
extant situation in their States.
In response to these directions, Chattisgarh
provided a Status Report on the progress
made by the “Anita Jha Committee” that
was set up to address the deaths caused by
the sterilization camp in Bilaspur. Bihar accepted
the failure of the sterilization camp
and that it had issued show-cause notices to
29
[(2014) 4 SCC 427].
30
(2009) 16 SCC 565.
90 | I•CONnect-Clough Center