Opinion Our acid test

The Indian Penal Code did not have specific provisions to criminalise and punish acid attacks until earlier this year. If a person is convicted for throwing acid on another,and thereby causing temporary or permanent damage or deformity,a minimum imprisonment of 10 years and a maximum of life imprisonment is now provided. Even if throwing acid does not result in injury,the perpetrator can receive a minimum punishment of five years,and a maximum of seven years imprisonment. If injury occurs,the court can order the perpetrator to pay compensation covering the victim’s reasonable medical expenses. By providing stringent punishments,the law aims to deter people from throwing acid on others. This approach is based on the assumption that people think rationally and evaluate their options before committing an offence. However,in an offence such as acid-throwing,where offenders generally act out of a misplaced sense of vengeance or spite,stringent punishment might,by itself,not be effective because the crime is not necessarily rational. In this context,preventing the crime by regulating the sale and possession of acids becomes important.

A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court in 2006,seeking the formulation of rules for regulating the sale and possession of acids. On July 16 this year,the Central government informed the SC that acids will be designated as “poison” under the Poisons Act,1919. The Poisons Act empowers state governments to regulate the sale and possession of poisons. The government can require licences to be obtained to sell poisons; regulate people to whom poisons can be sold,including the maximum quantity for one person; and require that sales records be maintained. Punishment can be provided for violating rules. The court directed states that had not formulated rules specific to acids to do so within three months,in accordance with the model rules submitted by the Central government. In the interim,the court issued directions that would take effect immediately.

The court prohibited over-the-counter sale of acid unless certain steps were taken by the seller. Acid can only be sold to a person aged 18 or above,and only on production of a government-issued photo ID that also has the person’s address. Further,the buyer has to specify the reason for purchasing acid. These details,as also the quantity of acid sold,have to be recorded in a register maintained by the seller. Only after satisfying these conditions can a sale be made. Violation of these norms would lead to a fine of up to Rs 50,000 for the seller. The court also required the seller to declare all stocks of acid to the jurisdictional sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) within 15 days. If the seller fails to do so,the SDM can confiscate the stock and also impose a fine up to Rs 50,000. Recognising that research laboratories,educational institutions,hospitals,etc require acid for their work,the court issued guidelines for them too. Such an entity will designate a person to be in charge of possession and safekeeping of acid on its premises. That person shall be held accountable if directions are violated. Anyone leaving the area or room where acid is used or stored will be compulsorily checked. A register of usage will also be maintained,and filed with the SDM.

Another important matter on which the court issued directions is victim-compensation. As noted earlier,an offender may be ordered to pay compensation. However,this is only after he/she is convicted. Taking note of this,the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was amended in 2009,adding Section 357A,under which state governments are required to formulate a victim-compensation scheme. Compensation need not depend on whether the perpetrator is apprehended and tried,and whether conviction ensues. It can also supplement the compensation the convict is ordered to pay. The SC noted that states that have put in place a victim-compensation scheme have stipulated varying amounts of compensation. It ruled that the amount will not be less than Rs 3 lakh,of which Rs 1 lakh shall be paid within 15 days of the incident. The balance has to be disbursed within two months. Through this approach,the court has ensured victims of acid attacks get immediate and necessary medical care,and that lack of financial resources does not impede treatment. The compensation scheme is also important since it recognises the state’s responsibility to provide compensation for failing to prevent the crime.

The SC’s directions and the steps being taken are welcome. However,will regulating access to acids work? Bangladesh enacted similar provisions in 2002. Statistics show that the regulation of sales reduced the number of acid-throwing cases,although it did not completely eliminate them. The enforcement of rules remains a challenge. How does one ensure that sellers do not violate these rules?

Deterrence might not be effective when it comes to individuals who throw acid on others. However,it might deter individuals from selling acid solely for financial gain. Hence,if stringent punishment is provided for selling acid in violation of the regulations,it could be an effective check against acid attacks. Another method could be to hold the seller responsible for abetting the crime,if acid sold illegally is used in an attack. Such deterrent punishments might also ensure that black-marketing of acids to thwart the regulations does not take place.

While regulating access to acid,the government also has to take note that acid has legitimate uses. It has to ensure that regulating retail sale and possession does not have an adverse impact on people who legitimately possess and use acid for work. Hence,the long-term strategy should focus on developing a comprehensive policy to deal specifically with acids,and not just as an adjunct to poisons.

The writer is associate professor of law,National

Law University,Delhi