Case Summary: Laxmi v. Union of India & Ors.

• Case Title: Laxmi v. Union of India & Ors.
• Citation: (2014) SCC(4) 427 
• Court: Supreme Court of India 
• Bench: Justices Madan B. Lokur and Uday Umesh Lalit.
• Date of Judgment: July 18, 2013 (followed by compliance and monitoring orders until 2015)

Relevant Key Statutes/ Provisions

• Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19, and 21 (Right to Equality, Right to Life and Personal  Liberty, Right to Live with Dignity) 
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 320, 322, 325, 326 (hurt and grievous hurt),  subsequent insertion of Section 326A & 326B (acid attack provisions) by Criminal Law  (Amendment) Act, 2013 
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 357A (Victim Compensation Scheme),  357B, and 357C 
• Poison Rules, 2013 and Poison Act, 1919 (governing sale of corrosive substances) 

Brief Facts 

The case was filed on the basis of a public interest litigation (PIL) moved in 2006 by Laxmi  herself, who was a survivor of an acid attack at the tender age of 15. She was attacked in  2005 in the vicinity of Tughlaq Road, New Delhi, by three men one of whom was a 32-year old man whose marriage proposal she had turned down. The criminals bought acid readily  from the market and threw it on her face, leaving her with permanent disfigurement, physical  disability, and extreme psychological trauma.

Touched deeply by her own agony and that of countless other women throughout India,  Laxmi moved a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court seeking: 

1. In-depth regulation of sale of acid – so that corrosive liquids do not easily find their way  into people’s hands. 
2. Proper compensation and rehabilitation strategies – comprising free treatment,  reconstructive surgery, and social reintegration of the survivors. 
3. Harsh penal provisions – targeted particularly against acid attacks, which hitherto were  prosecuted only under general provisions of “grievous hurt” in the IPC. 
4. Uniform schemes of victim compensation – throughout States and Union Territories. 

The petition mentioned shocking statistics and stories of acid attacks in India, where women  and young girls were the major victims, commonly attacked due to refusing romantic  advances, dowry issues, property issues, or other grounds. 

The Supreme Court addressed this as a constitutional issue, implicating directly the right to  life and dignity under Article 21. During several hearings, the Court interacted with various  stakeholders, such as the Union Government, State Governments, the National Commission  for Women, and NGOs.i 

Issues Involved 

The Court formulated and discussed the following core issues: 

1. Whether the free availability and uncontrolled sale of acid were a breach of the  constitutional right to life and dignity under Article 21. 
2. Whether the provisions of the IPC and CrPC as they stood were not sufficient to handle  acid attacks, requiring special legislative reforms. 
3. What were the duties of the State under Articles 14, 19, and 21 to safeguard survivors,  provide compensation, and prevent such offenses. 
4. Whether, exercising the jurisdiction available under Article 32, the Court could issue  binding directions for regulation, until legislative intervention.ii

Arguments 

(A) Petitioner’s Arguments (Laxmi & supporting NGOs) 

1. Unregulated Sale of Acid: Acid was widely available in roadside markets for even ₹30–₹50 per litre. There were no legal restrictions on its sale, though it is dangerous and corrosive. A ready availability was directly abetting crimes, especially against women. 

2. Insufficiency of Penal Provisions:  During filing, acid attacks were dealt with by sections 320–326 IPC (grievous hurt).  The provisions lacked representation of the special seriousness, cruelty, and long-term effects  of acid attacks.  The absence of a separate penal section minimized the deterrent value of criminal law. 

3. Right to Life and Dignity: Acid attack victims underwent irreversible disfigurement, permanent vision loss, hearing  loss, and other bodily functions. Aside from bodily harm, survivors went through social exclusion, loss of jobs, marriage  opportunities, and psychological shock. This was a direct violation of Article 21. 

4. Need for Comprehensive Rehabilitation: Survivors needed multiple operations, counselling, and continuous medical attention. Exorbitant treatment costs drove families into poverty. The State’s compensation policies were erratic and grossly insufficient.

5. Judicial Duty to Fill Legislative Vacuum: In the absence of a proper law, the Court must establish binding principles, which it had  established in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997). 

(B) Arguments of Respondent (Union of India & States) 

1. Measures Already Undertaken: The Government had contended that amendments were proposed to the IPC, CrPC, and  Evidence Act to prevent acid attacks. A Draft Bill was in progress. 
2. Federal Division of Powers: Control of shops and sale of acid were in the State List, so the Union could not unilaterally  restrict them. States must enact their own rules under the Poison Act, 1919. 
3. Victim Care & Compensation: A few States asserted that they had launched Victim Compensation Schemes under Section  357A CrPC. The Union alleged that it had instructed States to provide acid attack survivors with free  medical treatment.
4. Concern Regarding Judicial Overreach: The Government warned against the Court assuming legislative roles, positing that acid  regulation was a matter of policy. 

Judgment 

The Supreme Court of India, in Laxmi v. Union of India [(2014) 4 SCC 427], passed a  landmark judgment that transcended the run-of-the-mill parameters of private disputes and  created systemic protections for women against acid violence. The Court used a purposive,  rights-based approach, basing its ruling on constitutional assurances of Article 14 (equality  before the law), Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex), Article 19  (protection of individual freedoms), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). 

Judicial Approach 

The Court exercised its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 32, recognising that acid  attack survivors often lacked effective access to remedies and systemic negligence by both  State and Central authorities perpetuated impunity. Importantly, the Court held that mere  criminalisation of acid attacks under Section 326A and 326B IPC (introduced via Criminal  Law Amendment Act, 2013) was insufficient unless accompanied by preventive, regulatory,  and rehabilitative frameworks. 

Core Directions Issued 

The Court mandated guidelines to complete the legislative and executive void until  Parliament legislated an exhaustive statutory regime. The instructions comprised: 

1. Acid Sale Regulation 

• Sale of acid over the counter was barred except where the seller held a register showing the  identity of the buyer, address, and intent of purchase. 
• Acid could be sold only to persons over the age of 18, on production of a photo identity card  issued by the Government. 
• Sellers were required to report sales details to the local police within 15 days, and failure to  do so invited penal action.

2. Compensation Mechanism under Victim Compensation Scheme (VCS) 

• States and Union Territories were instructed to provide a minimum of ₹3 lakh compensation  to victims of acid attacks. 
• The compensation was to be released by the State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) with  ₹1 lakh to be released within 15 days of the occurrence to allow immediate medical attention. 
• This was linked with the constitutional assurance of Article 21, which rendered victim  rehabilitation an enforceable right. 

3. Medical and Educational Rehabilitation 

• Private and government hospitals were instructed to offer free medical treatment, including  reconstructive surgeries and after-care, to the survivors. 
• The Court also directed provisions for psychological counselling, vocational training, and  reintegration programmes, acknowledging the nexus between health, dignity, and livelihood  rights. 

4. Monitoring and Accountability 

• Effective implementation of the guidelines was entrusted to the Chief Secretaries of States  and Administrators of Union Territories. 
• Compliance reports were to be submitted periodically, rendering the judgment a living  instrument under the watchful eye of the judiciary. 

5. Public Awareness and Social Measures 

• Instructions were given to governments to develop awareness campaigns discouraging misuse  of acids and sensitizing people to survivors. 
• Schools and workplaces were also encouraged to implement positive measures for inclusion  of survivors.

Expansion of Article 21 

The Court categorically held that “right to life” under Article 21 encompasses the right to live  with dignity, health, and social acceptability. By associating acid attacks with long-term  psychological, physical, and economic repercussions, the Court transformed the narrative  from penal deterrence to transformative constitutionalism. 

The judgment, therefore, was not limited to punishing the perpetrators but reached out to  preventing the availability of acid, rehabilitating victims, and acknowledging gender-based  violence as a structural constitutional breach.  

Ratio Decidendi 

The binding principle of law created by the Court may be distilled as follows: 

“The right to life under Article 21 necessarily involves the right to live with dignity and  against gender-based violence. In acid attack cases, the State bears a positive obligation to  prevent, regulate and rehabilitate by imposing restrictions on sale of acid, providing  compensation to victims, and ensuring free medical treatment.” 

Key Elements of the Ratio: 

1. State Obligation Doctrine – Constitutional rights are not just negative constraints against  the interference of the State but also positive obligations on the State to safeguard weak  sections. 
2. Victim-Centric Jurisprudence – Judicature has to move beyond criminal punishment to  encompass rehabilitation, reparation, and reintegrating victims. 
3. Constitutionalisation of Compensation – Compensation is not benevolence or charity but a  constitutional right emanating from Article 21.
4. Preventive Justice – There is an obligation on the State to prohibit such substances as acid,  which are so dangerous to life and physical integrity. 

The ratio conclusively reoriented acid violence from a private act of crime to a constitutional  wrong invoking public law remedies. 

Obiter Dicta 

Though the ratio gave binding law, the Court also made a few persuasive remarks that  subsequently affected legislations and judicial evolution: 

1. Gender Justice as Constitutional Imperative 

The Court observed that gendered crime, such as acid attacks, demonstrates systemic  patriarchy and structural discrimination, which calls for intersectional responses. 

This insight is consonant with the wide feminist constitutional hermeneutics espoused in  subsequent cases such as Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and Joseph Shine (2018). 

2. Requirement of Holistic Legislation 

The Court indicated that piecemeal amendment of IPC/CrPC was insufficient. A separate law  on acid violence with precise definitions, punishment, and rehabilitation programs was  preferable. 

3. Judicial Activism as Necessity 

The Court recognized flak for “judicial overreach” but defended its intervention on grounds  of executive inertia and legislative lacunae. 

This obiter dicta reinforces jurisprudence of judicial imagination in human rights cases. 4. Comparative Jurisprudence

Although non-binding, the Court compared and contrasted with the world’s best practices,  including Bangladesh’s Acid Crime Control Act, 2002, highlighting the imperative for India  to follow leading policy models. 

These dicta acted as a moral compass and policy guide that steered further reforms. 

Final Decision 

The Supreme Court finally held in favour of the petitioner, Laxmi, and issued the following  operative directions: 

• Sale over-the-counter of acid without adherence to safeguards was banned. States/UTs were directed to formulate rules governing acid distribution within three months. A minimum compensation of ₹3 lakhs was made compulsory, to be paid in installments. 
• Free, complete medical treatment by all hospitals (public and private) to survivors was  ordered. 
• Rehabilitation efforts such as vocational training, educational assistance, and psychological  counselling were acknowledged as enforceable rights. 
• The Union of India was instructed to organize coordination with States for uniformity and  implementation. 

Therefore, the Court translated constitutional principles into enforceable rights, establishing a  new jurisprudence on gender violence.