SC bans over-the-counter sale of acid

July 18, 2013
New Delhi, Jul 18: The Supreme Court today directed states and Union Territories to frame rules to regulate sale of acids and other corrosive substances within three months and make acid attack a non-bailable offence. sc

The court also directed that acid attack victims shall be paid a compensation of at least Rs three lakh by the state government concerned as an after-care and rehabilitation cost for such victims.

A bench of headed by Justice R M Lodha said that the states and UTs, which have not regulated acid sale, to issue guidelines based on the model draft rules framed by the central government.

"The Chief Secretaries of respective states and administrators of each Union Territory shall ensure compliance of this order expeditiously and frame rules within three months after receiving the model draft rules from the central government," it said.

The bench also asked the central and state governments to work together and make the necessary rules under the Poison Act, 1919 for making acid attack a non-bailable offence.

The bench, which is hearing a PIL filed in 2006 by Delhi-based acid attack victim Laxmi who was then a minor, also passed a slew of interim directions on various issues including sale of acids.

Perusing the compensation schemes of 17 states and seven UTs, the bench observed that the amount which is being paid is "grossly inadequate".

"It cannot be overlooked that acid attack victims need to undergo a series of plastic surgeries and other corrective treatment. Having regard to this, the Solicitor General suggested to us that the compensation amount to be paid by states to acid attack victims must be enhanced to at least Rs three lakh.

"The suggestion is very fair. We accordingly direct that the acid attack victims shall be paid a compensation of at least Rs three lakh by the state government concerned as an after-care and rehabilitation cost for such victims," the court said.

The court also said that out of the compensation amount of Rs three lakh, Rs one lakh will be paid within 15 days of the occurrence of the attack being brought to the notice of the state government.

"The balance of Rs two lakh shall be paid by the state or Union Territory concerned as expeditiously as possible and positively within two months of the incident," it said, adding that the compliance of the order has to be ensured by the Chief Secretaries of the states and administrators of the UTs respectively.

The bench, in its interim directions, said that the licenced seller of acids and corrosive substances will have to maintain a log/register pertaining to the sale of such material.

It said that the register shall contain the addresses of the persons to whom such substances have been sold.

Photo identity card, containing residential address, issued by the authorities would be required for purchasing such substances which in any case cannot be sold to a person who is below the age of 18 years, the court said.

It also said that sellers will have to disclose their stock to the authorities concerned, otherwise the undeclared stock would be confiscated and "a suitable fine of upto Rs 50,000 shall be imposed on such sellers".

However, the court said that educational institutes, research laboratories, hospitals, government departments and public sector undertakings could acquire in bulk acids and corrosive substances by following certain guidelines.

"All such institutions/departments shall maintain a register regarding such substances and file the same with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned," it said, adding that a person of that institute/department shall be made accountable for the custody of such substances.

The court also made it clear that there shall be compulsory checking of student/personnel who have been allowed access to such places.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran said that the states of Punjab, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Kerala, Haryana, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya have already framed rules to regulate the sale of acids and corrosive substances.

On July 16, the Centre had told the apex court that in view of growing incidents of acid attacks, it has framed the Poisons Possession and Sale Rules, 2013, under the existing Poison Act, 1919, to regulate retail sale of acid and other poisonous substances.

Taking note of the rules, the court had asked the Centre to send the regulations to the states and UTs for their approval and issuance of notifications.

It had also said it may not consider banning the sale of acid in retail if the proposed rules and regulations are enforced.

Earlier, the apex court had slammed the Centre for not being "serious" about framing a policy to curb the sale of acids in order to prevent attacks.

In her petition, Laxmi, whose arms, face and other body parts had suffered disfiguration in the 2005 acid attack, had sought framing of a new law or amendment to the existing criminal laws like Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code for dealing with the offence, besides asking for compensation.

Laxmi had been attacked by three youths near Tughlaq Road here as she had refused to marry one of them, according to the petition. The trial is going on for the offence of attempt to murder and two of the accused are out on bail.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 4,2020

New Delhi, Feb 4: Saying the matter had been adjourned many times and it will have to hear it someday, the Supreme Court on Tuesday fixed April 14 for hearing a plea by Zakia Jafri, wife of slain MP Ehsan Jafri, challenging the SIT's clean chit to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots.

A bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari posted the matter for hearing in April after Zakia's counsel sought an adjournment and urged the court to post it after the Holi vacation.

When advocate Aparna Bhat, appearing for Zakia, told the court that the issue in the matter is contentious, the bench said, "It has been adjourned so many times, whatever it is, we will have to hear it someday. Take one date and make sure you all are available." Zakia had filed a petition in the apex court in 2018 challenging the Gujarat High Court's October 5, 2017 order rejecting her plea against the decision of the Special Investigation Team.

Ehsan Jafri was among the 68 people killed at Gulberg Society on February 28, 2002, a day after the S-6 Coach of the Sabarmati Express was burnt at Godhra killing 59 people and triggering riots in Gujarat.

On February 8, 2012, the SIT filed a closure report giving a clean chit to Modi and 63 others, including senior government officials, saying there was "no prosecutable evidence" against them.

Comments

Althaf
 - 
Tuesday, 4 Feb 2020

No use.. will Supreme court gives justice??? 

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 4,2020

New Delhi, Mar 4: The Supreme Court on Wednesday revoked the ban of cryptocurrency imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 2018.

Pronouncing the verdict, the three-judge bench of the apex court said the ban was 'disproportionate'.

The bench included Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice V Ramasubramanian.

The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), whose members include cryptocurrency exchanges, and others had approached the top court objecting to a 2018 RBI circular directing regulated entities to not deal with cryptocurrencies.

Advocate Ashim Sood, appearing for IAMI, submitted that Reserve Bank of India lacked jurisdiction to forbid dealings in cryptocurrencies. The blanket ban was based on an erroneous understanding that it was impossible to regulate cryptocurrencies, Sood submitted.

The petitioners had argued that the RBI's circular taking cryptocurrencies out of the banking channels would deplete the ability of law enforcement agencies to regulate illegal activities in the industry.

IAMAI had claimed the move of RBI had effectively banned legitimate business activity via the virtual currencies (VCs).

The RBI on April 6, 2018, had issued the circular that barred RBI-regulated entities from "providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those of transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies".

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 28,2020

Panaji, Jan 28: Bureaucrat-turned-activist Kannan Gopinathan on Tuesday said even some "RSS people" are convinced the Citizenship Amendment Act is a bad law but are keeping quiet as the NDA government at the Centre is their own baby.

Speaking in Panaji, he further said the Narendra Modi government was behaving like a "drunken teenager" which needs to be questioned or else it will end up destroying homes.

"I was detained twice in UP, kept the whole day, because they (government) do not want the questioning (of CAA). I have met so many RSS people, they also understand this...if you have this conversation, they also understand the government has done something (wrong) and they have been asked to support it," he claimed.

He said the line of thought among these RSS people (he met) was "just support it (CAA)" as they don't want an altercation because the "government is their baby".

"He (government) is not a normal baby, he is a drunken teenager. He should be asked questions because when he starts destroying, he does not destroy somebody else's home but your own home," Gopinathan said.

He also hit out at those who have been claiming that the people protesting against the CAA are unaware about the law and have not even read it.

Gopinathan claimed if one had asked supportive MPs about the CAA on the day it was passed in Parliament, several of them would not have been able to speak on it as "they would not have known what was passed, because they were not given time (to go through the bill)".

He said, earlier, such legislation was passed after several rounds of consultation but "now, by night, it becomes an Act", adding (now) "everything is a surgical strike".

Gopinathan, in a possible reference to the National Register of Citizens exercise carried out in Assam, also claimed "thousands of people are in detention centres".

"It is your fundamental right to peacefully assemble without arms, Article 19 (1) (D) (of the Constitution)," he said at a function organised by a group opposed to CAA.

Gopinathan said people "always felt they were in a democracy" because they never tried to fly, when in reality "you are in a cage".

"The moment you want to fly you realise you are in a cage," he said, adding that "we have to question, we have to ask ourselves where are we going".

"When you don't allow a person to speak against an incorrect legislation, then what is democracy? What is freedom of expression?" Gopinathan questioned.

Gopinathan, a 2012 batch AGMUT cadre Indian Administrative Service officer, was the secretary, Power Department of the Union Territories of Daman and Diu, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli when he resigned on August 21 last year.

At the time, he had claimed the people of Jammu and Kashmir were being denied freedom of expression following abrogation of Article 370 by the Centre.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.