Allahabad High Court Converts 2014 PIL On Regulating Sale Of Acid In UP Into Suo Moto Proceeding

The order was passed after the original petitioner (Anubhav Verma) submitted that he was not inclined to pursue the litigation any further.

Permitting him to withdraw from the case, a Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Vivek Saran observed that the "interest of justice may be defeated" if the case were to be closed merely because the petitioner wished to withdraw.

Refusing to dismiss the petition, the Bench observed:

"While we cannot judge the choice or motive of the original petitioner who wishes to withdraw from such a genuine public interest litigation, we observe that the interest of justice may be defeated if such litigation is permitted to be withdrawn on the volition of the original petitioner, to the extent this is not adversarial litigation but public interest litigation".

Consequently, the Court directed the Registry to maintain the cause and re-register the proceedings as a suo moto petition.

To ensure the Court continues to receive assistance in this significant matter, the Bench appointed Advocates Akansha Mishra and Utkarshini Singh as Amicus Curiae.

For context, the PIL was initially filed to enforce the Supreme Court's directives in Laxmi Vs. Union of India (2013), which mandated states to frame rules for the possession and sale of acid and formulate schemes for victim compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

In an order passed in August 2014, the High Court had scrutinised the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 and had found Clause 4 of the Scheme to be ambiguous and potentially restrictive.

Sub-clause (a) of Clause 4 appeared to make victims eligible for compensation only if the offender is not traced or identified. The HC had strongly objected to this interpretation as it had stated thus:

"There is no reason or justification to exclude a claim for compensation in a situation in which, for instance a victim of rape or of an acid attack identifies the offender or where the offender has been traced. In other words, the Scheme should not be confined only to situations where the offender is not traced or is not identified."

The Court had directed the State to revisit the clause to ensure the remedy was accessible.

Regarding the quantum of compensation, the bench had observed that the State Government needed to reconsider whether three lacs would meet the ends of justice in all such cases, as repeated surgeries, follow-up treatment and rehabilitation are required for the victims.

While the State Government had notified the Uttar Pradesh Poisons (Possession and Sale) Rules, 2014, during the pendency of the petition, the Court had warned that legislative framing alone was insufficient.

"The mere framing of the Rules will not, however, be adequate. Necessary action has to be taken to ensure that the Rules are strictly enforced by the State Government so as to prevent the sale of poisonous substances including acid," the 2014 order read.