Why in the News?

• The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over continued delays in victim compensation and non-compliance by private hospitals in offering free critical treatment to acid attack survivors, despite judicial orders issued more than a decade ago.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Acid Attack Cases (Judicial Intervention, Current Court Proceedings, Court’s Directions to Authorities, Implications, etc.)

Judicial Intervention in Acid Attack Cases

• Acid attacks in India have long prompted judicial attention due to their devastating physical, psychological, and economic impact on survivors, many of whom are young women.
• The Supreme Court initiated sustained oversight beginning in 2006, following the horrific case of Laxmi, who was attacked at the age of 15.
• In subsequent years, the Court issued landmark directives:

• Minimum Rs. 3 lakh compensation for survivors, with Rs. 1 lakh to be paid within 15 days of the incident.
• Free and immediate medical treatment in private hospitals, including medicines, food, and specialised care.
• Ban on the over-the-counter sale of acid to curb misuse.
• Designation of District Legal Services Authorities (DLSA) as criminal injuries compensation boards to streamline claims.

• Despite these orders, survivors continue to face procedural delays and denial of essential services.

Current Supreme Court Proceedings

• The present plea before the Supreme Court, filed by the Acid Survivors Saahas Foundation, argues that many survivors have either not received full compensation or were denied free critical care by private hospitals.
• The Bench acknowledged that these issues persisted despite “repeated judicial orders spanning years.”
• During the hearing, significant revelations came to light:

• Victims in several States, including Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, received only the initial Rs. 1 lakh payout, with no support for expensive reconstructive surgeries.
• Private hospitals, in violation of Supreme Court directives, demanded full payment up front before admitting survivors.
• Incomplete compliance reports were being furnished, often listing aggregated payments rather than victim-wise details.
• As many as eight States and five Union Territories had not yet filed their affidavits explaining compensation delays.

• This prompted the Bench to emphasise the urgent need for system-wide accountability.

Supreme Court’s Directions to Authorities

• Strengthening Financial Accountability
  • The Bench ordered State Chief Secretaries to personally ensure that funds flow promptly from State governments to State Legal Services Authorities, and then onward to district bodies, enabling final payment to survivors.
  • It also highlighted the need for updated compensation amounts, recognising that the earlier fixed sum of Rs. 3 lakh is insufficient given rising medical costs and the need for multiple reconstructive surgeries.
• Ensuring Compliance by Private Hospitals
  • Principal Health Secretaries in States and UTs have been directed to ensure that private hospitals cannot deny free treatment, including critical and emergency care.
  • Any refusal would amount to a violation of Supreme Court orders and can attract criminal liability.
• Demand for Detailed Data from NALSA
  • NALSA informed the Court that approximately 484 crore had been disbursed as compensation between March 2024 and April 2025, but agreed to furnish a detailed report on State-wise and victim-wise distribution.
• Maintaining Transparent Records

• Names of victims
• Date of compensation applications
• Date of actual payment
• Remarks on delays or pending claims

Implications for Victim Rights and Governance

• The Supreme Court’s renewed push marks a critical attempt to ensure States honour their obligations toward one of the most marginalised groups.
• Acid attack survivors often face lifelong trauma, disfigurement, disability, and stigma, making immediate medical intervention and financial support indispensable.
• By directing personal accountability at the highest administrative levels and demanding data transparency from NALSA, the Court is reinforcing a rights-based framework where compensation and healthcare access are guaranteed entitlements, not discretionary support.