Dignity of individuals on same pedestal as unity of nation: Uttarakhand High Court awards ₹35 lakh to acid attack survivor

The Uttarakhand High Court recently directed the State government to pay ₹35,00,000 as compensation to a survivor of an acid attack. [Gulnaz Khan v. The State of Uttarakhand and Ors].Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra held that the survivor's right to live life with dignity had been breached, and underlined that the dignity of individuals is kept on the same pedestal as unity and integrity of nation."The right to live life with dignity has been breached in this case. The preamble of the Constitution of India provides that India is constituted into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and shall provide to its citizen justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity; promoting among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and integrity of the Nation. Dignity of individuals and unity and integrity of the Nation is kept in the same high pedestal," the Court said..After the attacker was sentenced to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹20,000 under Section 326-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) by a sessions court, the petitioner was awarded ₹1,60,000 as compensation by a District Programme Officer. Further, a coordinate bench of the High Court granted an additional ₹1,50,000 compensation to her.The survivor filed the writ petition seeking ₹50,00,000 as compensation from the State, as her right to live life with dignity was infringed. She also sought directions to the State to make a comprehensive rehabilitation scheme for her and to pay for her future hospital expenses for medical procedures required after the attack..Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Ajay Singh Bisht, argued that since the District Legal Services Authority had awarded the compensation, an appeal should have been filed before Uttarakhand State Legal Service Authority (UKSLSA) and not the High Court.Hence, he contended that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner..The Court, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, stated that a writ petition is maintainable without relegating the poor litigant to avail an alternative efficacious remedy available to him."Even if, efficacious alternative remedy is available, if there is breach of fundamental right; or if there is violation of principle of natural justice and if order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged, the High Court has power to entertain the writ petition," the Court added.The Court explained that the petitioner's right to live life with dignity had definitely been infringed..The State Counsel further argued that the proposal for compensation that was submitted by the Member Secretary, UKSLSA should have been under the old scheme and not the new scheme which was implemented from 2018.However, the Court underlined that the Scheme is a beneficiary scheme and if cause of action survives on the date of implementation of the scheme, the benefit of the same should go to the survivor.In this backdrop, it noted that although the incident took place in 2014, the process of determination of compensation is still ongoing and that the survivor was still experiencing the effects of the attack. Hence, it held that the cause of action still continues..The Member Secretary of the UKSLSA also suggested that a sum of ₹23,00,000 be paid to the petitioner. He further suggested that in the light of Section 19 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, the government may provide some vocational training programme to acid attack survivors and may motivate, with all possible logistic support, the survivor to start a business.However, Advocate Snigdha Tiwari for the petitioner stated that the amount suggested by Member Secretary, UKSLSA, is for medical intervention for the injuries sustained by her, but does take into consideration the trauma and agony she suffered..After listening to all the parties, the Court directed the State to pay ₹35,00,000 to the survivor as compensation . Further, it directed to State to bear all her future hospital expenses for treatment, even if they were outside the State..[Read Judgment]