Gauhati High Court
Nishamoni Borah And Anr vs The State Of Assam And 10 Ors on 30 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010012702017
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/859/2017
NISHAMONI BORAH and ANR.
D/O MR. ROHINI BORAH R/O BORIGAON, P.O. DHALPUR P.S. BIHPURIA
DIST. LAKHIMPUR.
2: NORTH-EAST NETWORK NEN
REP. BY ITS PROGRAM MANAGER
ASSAM HEAD OFFICE
J.N. BAROOAH LANE
JORPUKHURI
GUWAHATI - 781001
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and 10 ORS.
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI -
781005.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
DISPUR
GUWAHATI - 781005.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781005.
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS
GUWAHATI - 781005.
Page No.# 2/14
5:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781005.
6:THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE OFFICE CAMPUS
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
7:THE ASSAM STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DIGHALIPUKHURI
GUWAHATI
ASSAM.
8:OFFICER IN CHARGE
BAHARALUMUKH POLICE STATION
GUWAHATI - 781009.
9:OFFICERIN-CHARGE
WOMEN POLICE STATION
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI --781001.
10:SANJEEVANI HOSPITAL
A.T. ROAD
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI - 781011.
11:UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
JAI SINGH ROAD
NEW DELH
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PHUKAN, MR. B J TALUKDAR(P-1),MR. DITUL DAS(P-
1),MR. R J SARMA(P-1),MS. J HAZARIKA,MR. D DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT. S.G.I., MR. M CHOUDHURY(R-7 & R-6),MR. S C
KEYAL,SC, FINANCE,GA, ASSAM,MR. M MAHANTA(R- 6 & R-7),MR. B GOGOI (SC, HEALTH
DEPT.)
Page No.# 3/14
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 30.04.2026 Heard Ms. V. Grover, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 as well as Mr. M. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
2. Ms. V. Grover, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the State respondents, including the Legal Services Authority, have already extended compensation to the victim in terms of the applicable scheme and have borne the expenses of past medical treatment, including as many as seven (7) surgeries undertaken at Hyderabad up to the year 2019.
3. It is, however, contended that in view of the latest medical opinion rendered by the concerned specialist at Sri Sankardeva Netralaya, recommending a repeat corneal grafting of the right eye with a view to improving vision, the victim is desirous of undergoing the said procedure at Hyderabad, where she had earlier undergone treatment. In that backdrop, a direction is sought for bearing the cost of the proposed surgery along with all ancillary and incidental expenses, on the same lines as previously provided.
4. At this juncture, it would be apposite to notice the legal position governing the obligation of the State in cases of acid attack victims.
Page No.# 4/14 The Apex Court, in Parivartan Kendra vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 571, while clarifying the scope of its earlier decision in Laxmi vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 669, has categorically held that the prescription of a minimum compensation does not operate as a ceiling, and that the State retains the discretion and indeed the obligation to award higher compensation commensurate with the needs of the victim. The Court further underscored that the State must assume full responsibility for the treatment and rehabilitation of acid attack victims.
5. Relevant paragraphs extracts from the aforesaid judgment read as under:
"9. Before we proceed further, we would like to go through the orders passed by the Apex Court in Laxmi v. Union of India, dealing with a similar case of acid attack victim. On 18-7-2013, this Court passed the following order: (SCC pp. 429-31. paras 8-14) '8. The Centre and States/Union Territories shall work towards making the offences under the Poisons Act, 1919 cognizable and non-bailable.
9. In the States/Union Territories, where rules to regulate sale of acid and other corrosive substances are not operational, until such rules are framed and made operational, the Chief Secretaries of the States concerned/Administrators of the Union Territories shall ensure compliance with the following directions with immediate effect:
9.1. Over the counter sale of acid is completely prohibited unless the seller maintains a log/register recording the sale of acid which will contain the details of the person(s) to whom acid(s) is/are sold and the quantity sold. The log/register shall contain the address of the person to whom it is sold.
9.2. All sellers shall sell acid only after the buyer has shown:
Page No.# 5/14
(a) a photo ID issued by the Government which also has the address of the person;
(b) specifies the reason/purpose for procuring acid.
9.3. All stocks of acid must be declared by the seller with the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (SDM) concerned within 15 days.
9.4. No acid shall be sold to any person who is below 18 years of age 9.5. In case of undeclared stock of acid, it will be open to the SDM concerned to confiscate the stock and suitably impose fine on such seller up to Rs 50,000.
9.6. The SDM concerned may impose fine up to Rs 50.000 on any person who commits breach of any of the above directions.
10. Educational institutions, research laboratories, hospitals. government departments and the departments of public sector undertakings, who are required to keep and store acid, shall follow the following guidelines:
10.1. A register of usage of acid shall be maintained and the same shall be filed with the SDM concerned.
10.2. A person shall be made accountable for possession and safe keeping of acid in their premises.
10.3. The acid shall be stored under the supervision of this person and there shall be compulsory checking of the students/personnel leaving the laboratories/place of storage where acid is used
11. The SDM concerned shall be vested with the responsibility of taking appropriate action for the breach/default/violation of the above directions
12. Section 357-A came to be inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Act 5 of 2009 w.e.f. 31-12-2009. Inter alia, this section provides for preparation of a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependants who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.
13. We are informed that pursuant to this provision, 17 States and 7 Union Territories have prepared "Victim Compensation Scheme (for short 'the Scheme'). As regards the victims of acid attacks, the Page No.# 6/14 compensation mentioned in the Scheme framed by these States and Union Teritories is un-uniform. While the State of Bihar has provided for compensation. of Rs 25,000 in such Scheme, the State of Rajasthan has provided for Rs 2 lakhs of compensation. In our view, the compensation provided in the Scheme by most of the States/Union Territories is inadequate. It cannot be overlooked that acid attack victims need to undergo a series of plastic surgeries and other corrective treatments. Having regard to this problem. the learned Solicitor General suggested to us that the compensation by the States/Union Territories for acid attack victims must be enhanced to at least Rs 3 lakhs as the aftercare and rehabilitation cost. The suggestion of the learned Solicitor General is very fair.
14. We. accordingly, direct that the acid attack victims shall be paid compensation of at least Rs 3 lakhs by the State Government/Union Territory concerned as the aftercare and rehabilitation cost. Of this amount. a sum of Rs 1 lakh shall be paid to such victim within 15 days of occurrence of such incident (or being brought to the notice of the State Government/Union Territory) to facilitate immediate medical attention and expenses in this regard. The balance sum of Rs 2 lakhs shall be paid as expeditiously as may be possible and positively within two months thereafter. The Chief Secretaries of the States and the Administrators of the Union Territories shall ensure compliance with the above direction."
10. On 3-12-2013, in Laxmi case, when the affidavit of the State of Haryana was placed before the Bench, in which it stated that the Government of Haryana is in the process of framing a scheme for full medical treatment, short term as well as long term, for specialised plastic surgery, corrective surgeries. providing specialised psychological treatment to the acid attack victims to help them to come out of the horror and trauma of the acid attack and their rehabilitation, this Court directed the Chief Secretaries of the States fother than Haryana) and the administrators of the Union Territories to file affidavit and indicate to this Court, the State's view in bearing 100% cost of treatment of the acid attack victims in line with the decision taken by the Government of Haryana and also with regard to framing of scheme on the lines of the Haryana Government for medical treatment at specialised hospitals having facility for plastic surgery, corrective surgery and psychological as well as other treatment to the acid attack victims. This Court further directed the Chief Secretaries of the States and Administrators of the Union Territories to issue necessary instructions to the police stations within their respective State/Union Territory that as and when an Page No.# 7/14 FIR is lodged with the police relating to acid attack. the police station concerned will send a communication to the jurisdictional SDM about receipt of such information. Upon receipt of such information, the jurisdictional SDM shall then make an inquiry into the procurement of acid by the wrongdoer and take appropriate action in the matter.
11. While disposing of the writ petition in Laxmi v. Union of India³, this Court inter alia held, thus:
"10. We have gone through the chart annexed along with the affidavit filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs and we find that despite the directions given by this Court in Laxmi v. Union of India', the minimum compensation of Rs 3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only) per acid attack victini has not been fixed in some of the States/Union Territories. In our opinion, it will be appropriate if the Member Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority takes up the issue with the State Government so that the orders passed by this Court are complied with and a minimum of Rs 3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs only) is made available to each victim of acid attack.
11. From the figures given above, we find that the amount will not be burdensome so far as the State Governments/Union Territories are concerned and, therefore, we do not see any reason why the directions given by this Court should not be accepted by the State Governments/Union Territories since they do not involve any serious financial implication.
13. Insofar as the proper treatment, aftercare and rehabilitation of the victims of acid attack is concerned, the meeting convened on 14- 3-2015 notes unanimously that full medical assistance should be provided to the victims of acid attack and that private hospitals should also provide free medical treatment to such victims. It is noted that there may perhaps be some reluctance on the part of some private hospitals to provide free medical treatment and, therefore, the officers concerned in the State Governments should take up the matter with the private hospitals so that they are also required to provide free medical treatment to the victims of acid attack.
14. The decisions taken in the meeting read as follows:
The private hospitals will also be brought on board for compliance and the States/UTs will use necessary means in this regard.
No hospital/clinic should refuse treatment citing lack of specialised facilities.
Page No.# 8/14 First aid must be administered to the victim and after stabilisation the victim/patient could be shifted to a specialised facility for further treatment, wherever required.
Action may be taken against hospital/clinic for refusal to treat victims of acid attacks and other crimes in contravention of the provisions of Section 357-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
17. We, therefore, Issue a direction that the State Governments/Union Teritories should seriously discuss and take up the matter with all the private hospitals in their respective State/Union Territory to the effect that the private hospitals should not refuse treatment to victims of acid attack and that full treatment should be provided to such victims including medicines, food, bedding and reconstructive surgeries
18. We also issue a direction that the hospital, where the victim of an acid attack is first treated, should give a certificate that the individual is a victim of an acid attack. This certificate may be utilised by the victim for treatment and reconstructive surgeries or any other scheme that the victim may be entitled to with the State Government or the Union Territory, as the case may be.
19. In the event of any specific complaint against any private hospital or government hospital, the acid attack victim will, of course, be at liberty to take further action.
20. With regard to the banning of sale of acid across the counter, we direct the Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to take up the matter with the State Governments/Union Territories to ensure that an appropriate notification to this effect is issued within a period of three months from today. It appears that some States/Union Territories have already issued such a notification, but, in our opinion, all States and Union Territories must issue such a notification at the earliest
21. The final issue is with regard to the setting up of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In the meeting held on 14-3-2015, the unanimous view was that since the District Legal Services Authority is already constituted in every district and is involved in providing appropriate assistance relating to acid attack victims, perhaps it may not be necessary to set up a separate Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In other words. a multiplicity of authorities need not be created.
22. In our opinion, this view is quite reasonable. Therefore, in case of Page No.# 9/14 any compensation claim made by any acid attack victim, the matter will be taken up by the District Legal Services Authority, which will include the District Judge and such other co-opted persons who the District Judge feels will be of assistance, particularly the District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and the Civil Surgeon or the Chief Medical Officer of that district or their nominee. This body will function as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for all purposes
12. The abovementioned direction given by this Court in Laxmi case is a general mandate to the States and Union Territories and is the minimum amount which the State shall make available to each victim of acid attack. The State and Union Territory concerned can give even more amount of compensation than Rs 3.00.000 as directed by this Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the mandate given by this Court in Laxmi case nowhere restricts the Court from giving more compensation to the victim of acid attack, especially when the victim has suffered serious injuries on her body which is required to be taken into consideration by this Court. In peculiar facts, this Court can grant even more compensation to the victim than Rs 3.00.000.
13. We have come across many instances of acid attacks across the country These attacks have been rampant for the simple reason that there has been no proper implementation of the regulations or control for the supply and distribution of acid. There have been many cases where the victims of acid attack are made to sit at home owing to their difficulty to work. These instances unveil that the State has failed to check the distribution of acid falling into the wrong hands even after giving many directions by this Court in this regard. Henceforth, stringent action be taken against those erring persons supplying acid without proper authorisation and also the authorities concerned be made responsible for failure to keep a check on the distribution of the acid.
14. When we consider the instant case of the victims, the very sight of the victim is traumatising for us. If we could be traumatised by the mere sight of injuries caused to the victim by the inhumane acid attack on her. what would the situation of the victim be, perhaps, we cannot judge. Nonetheless we cannot be oblivious of the fact of her trauma.
15. From perusal of the record of the case, it is found that the elder sister suffered 28% burns on her body and 90% on her face, owing to the alleged brutal attack on her. Due to the acid attack, the victim Page No.# 10/14 had undergone several surgeries, and has to undergo many more corrective and curative surgeries for her treatment.
16. Admittedly, three skin grafting surgeries were conducted by PMCH but they were all improperly conducted as testified at Safdarjung Hospital. The victim, was brought to Delhi by the petitioner and in Delhi some skin grafting surgeries were again conducted at Safdarjung Hospital for neck, lips, eyes, nose, arm, forehead and ear. Further skin grafting surgeries were also conducted at Fortis Hospital for neck, lips, nose, eye and arm. In the opinion of the victim's doctor also, she would be required to undergo multiple corrective and curative operations and medical support for the rest of her life. The victim would be required to have corrective and curative surgeries for neck, lips, eyes, nose, arm, forehead, ears, breasts and elbow. Apart from the above medical conditions/treatment, which she is required to undergo, there are many other consequences, which an acid attack brings out in the life of the victim.
17. Considering the plight of the victim we can sum up that:
(i) The likeliness of the victim getting a job which involves physical exertion of energy is very low.
(ii) The social stigma and the pain that she has to go through for not being accepted by the society cannot be neglected. Furthermore, the general reaction of loathing which she would have to encounter and the humiliation that she would have to face throughout her life cannot be compensated in terms of money
(iii) As a result of the physical injury, the victim will not be able to lead a normal life and cannot dreams of marriage prospects
iv) Since her skin is fragile due to the acid attack she would have to take care of it for the rest of her life. Therefore, the aftercare and rehabilitation cost that has to be incurred will have huge financial implications on her and her family
18. On perusal of various contentions and evidence, we find it imperative to mention that even after this Court having passed an order dated 6-2-2013 directing the Union of India and the States to implement compensation payable to acid attack victims by creation of a separate fund, only 17 States have been notified of the Victim Compensation Schemes (VCS) Out of which 7 States and 4 Union Territories have not initiated VCS. Even in those States where the Scheme has been implemented, a meagre compensation ranging Page No.# 11/14 between Rs 25,000 to Rs 2 lakhs is provided for medical care. And many States have not provided any compensation for rehabilitation at all. In the present case, the Government of Bihar has fixed a pitiable amount of Rs 25,000 for the victims of acid attack.
19. The guidelines issued by orders in Laxmi case are proper, except with respect to the compensation amount. We just need to ensure that these guidelines are implemented properly. Keeping in view the impact of acid attack on the victim's social, economical and personal life, we need to enhance the amount of compensation. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the victim of acid attack requires permanent treatment for the damaged skin. The mere amount of Rs 3 lakhs will not be of any help to such a victim. We are conscious of the fact that enhancement of the compensation amount will be an additional burden on the State. But prevention of such a crime is the responsibility of the State and the liability to pay the enhanced compensation will be of the State The enhancement of the compensation will act in two ways:
(i) It will help the victim in rehabilitation:
(ii) It will also make the State to implement the guidelines properly as the State will try to comply with it in its true spirit so that the crime of acid attack can be prevented in future.
20. Having regard to the problems faced by the victims, this Court in Laxmi v. Union of India' by an order dated 18-7-2013, enhanced the compensation, stating that, at least Rs 3 lakhs must be paid to the victims of acid attacks by the Government concerned". Therefore, a minimum of Rs 3 lakhs is to be awarded by the Government to each victim of the acid attack. In the present case, a minimum amount of Rs 6 lakhs has to be awarded to the sisters.
21. In peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that victim Chanchal deserves to be awarded a compensation more than what has been prescribed by this Court in Laxmi case'. Though in this case we are not issuing any guidelines. different from the guidelines issued in Laxmi case, we should not forget that the younger sister was also injured by the acid attack Although her degree of sufferance is not as that of the elder one, but she also requires treatment and rehabilitation. It is to be noted that this Court in Laxmi case does not put a bar on the Government to award compensation limited to Rs 3 lakhs The State has the discretion to provide more compensation to the victim in the case of acid attack as per Laxmi case guidelines. It is also to be noticed that this Court has not put any condition in Laxmi case as to the degree of injuries which a victim has suffered due to acid attack. In the instant case, the Page No.# 12/14 victim's father has already spent more than Rs 5 lakhs for the treatment of the victim. In consideration of the severity of the victim's injury, expenditure with regard to grafting and reconstruction surgery, physical and mental pain, etc.. we are of the opinion that the victim (Chanchal) should be compensated to a tune of at least Rs 10 lakhs. Suffice it to say that the compensation must not only be awarded in terms of the physical injury, we have also to take note of the victim's inability to lead a full life and to enjoy those amenities which is being robbed of her as a result of the acid attack. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to award a compensation of Rs 10 lakhs and accordingly, we direct the Government concerned to compensate the victim Chanchal to the tune of Rs 10 lakhs, and in light of the judgment given in Laxmi case we direct the State Government of Bihar concerned to compensate the main victim's sister. Sonant to a tune of Rs 3 lakhs. Of the total amount of Rs 13 lakhs, a sum of Rs 5 lakhs shall be paid to the victim and her family within a period of one month and the remaining sum of Rs 8 lakhs shall be paid to the victims within a period of three months from the date of this order.
Furthermore, the State shall upon itself take full responsibility for the treatment and rehabilitation of the victims of acid attack as per the guidelines provided in Laxmi case, vide order dated 10-4-2015."
6. Further, in Nipun Saxena and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2020) 18 SCC 499, the Apex Court has held that the scheme framed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) for women victims/survivors of sexual assault and other crimes embodies the best practices and is required to be implemented in letter and spirit by all States and Union Territories. It has been emphasized that the said scheme prescribes only the minimum entitlements and does not preclude the State from augmenting the benefits; however, no component thereof can be diluted.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, and considering the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the right of the victim to receive adequate medical care cannot be constrained by technical or financial Page No.# 13/14 limitations, particularly when a competent medical opinion indicates a reasonable possibility of improvement in vision. The obligation of the State, in such circumstances, is not merely compensatory but extends to ensuring meaningful rehabilitation.
8. The recommendation of the specialist at Sri Sankardeva Netralaya, advising a repeat corneal grafting of the right eye, cannot be lightly disregarded. The victim having previously undergone treatment at Hyderabad and expressing a preference to continue treatment at the same place, such request appears to be bona fide and rooted in medical continuity.
9. However, since the precise financial implications, logistical arrangements, and administrative approvals would require consideration at the level of the State authorities, this Court deems it appropriate to afford an opportunity to the learned State counsel to obtain necessary instructions.
10. Accordingly, Mr. N. Goswami, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9, is granted time to obtain specific instructions as regards (i) the feasibility of facilitating the proposed surgery at Hyderabad, and (ii) the extent to which the State is willing to bear the cost of the procedure and incidental expenses.
11. Let a copy of this order be served to the learned counsels for the parties.
Page No.# 14/14
12. List the matter on 12.05.2026 at 2:00 p.m. JUDGE Comparing Assistant