The High Court of Jharkhand issued a call for gender-neutral compensation for the survivors of acid attack – A move that could help towards gender equality
The Jharkhand High Court in a welcome comment on the issue of victim compensation recommended that the State Government review its victim compensation policy to ensure that those male who survived an acid attack are given proper compensation. The recommendation has begun to spark an important debate of whether victim compensation should be gender-specific or gender-neutral. The Court’s proposal reinforces the philosophic principle of equality, but it also generates many complicated issues regarding victim justice as well as the purpose of acid attack compensation schemes.
The issue was before the High Court while hearing the case of a man who allegedly did not receive compensation commensurate with the compensation provided to women as per the State’s victim compensation procedure after an acid attack. The Court pointed out that regardless of gender, acid attacks have devastating physical, psychological and financial consequences. For this reason, it recommended the State to reconsider its compensation policy so that there is no disparity in having adequate relief for similarly situated victims who are male.
The recommendation is supported by the constitution guarantee of equality: Article 14 of the Constitution, which provides for equal protection of laws. The right of life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution has always been interpreted by the Supreme Court as the right to live with dignity, to have access to medical treatment, rehabilitation and compensation in appropriate cases. The rehabilitation of acid attack survivors is complemented by compensation, as it involves them taking multiple reconstructive surgeries, lifelong medical treatment, psychological counseling, vocational rehabilitation, and more.
The law pertaining to compensation for victims is largely entrenched in Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). It mandates all State Governments to establish a Victim Compensation Scheme for the persons suffering losses or injuries as a result of crime and need rehabilitation. The Supreme Court has also issued several directions to undertake appropriate compensation and free medical treatment of the acid attack survivors to the States.
The observations made by the Jharkhand High Court will, therefore, be in line with the mandate of the statute of victim rehabilitation. A person’s experience of suffering an acid attack does not vary significantly due to gender, with the results being permanent disfigurement, disability, loss of livelihood and emotional trauma. A refusal to pay the same for the same work simply because it is done by a woman may not be in keeping with the principle of equality enshrined in the constitution.
But the recommendation has to be considered as well. Acid attacks in India have been known to be disproportionately directed towards the female gender, typically as a result of a marriage rejection, sexual advances which are rejected, domestic violence or gender-based hostility. This social reality led legislatures and courts to adopt special protections and greater compensation to women. Gender specific schemes were not just established to provide compensation for physical injuries but also to respond to systemic discrimination and violence experienced by women.
Such an approach should be very carefully applied because it is completely gender neutral. Equality does not necessarily mean equal treatment. The Constitution shows that the State has a constitutional mandate to make special provision for women and children in Article 15(3). Thus, the continued need for gender-based violence (GBV) support for women might still be constitutionally valid. The difficulty is making sure that women’s protections are not undermined by being diluted by extending to male survivors.
One more balanced approach could be to ensure a minimum compensation amount for anyone who has been a victim of acid attacks, while providing higher compensation for those who experienced the attack as a result of gender-based violence or other aggravated situation. This would ensure equality without ignoring the special vulnerabilities of women that remain.
The High Court’s recommendation, in turn, highlights a larger problem with the compensation system in India for victims. There are significant differences in eligibility, compensation and procedure among many State schemes. However, delays in disbursement and poor rehabilitation often result in survivors continuing to suffer despite beneficial judicial orders. More effective way to address these inconsistencies would be to have a comprehensive national policy that sets uniform standards for compensation, medical care, education, employment assistance, and long-term rehabilitation.
In the end, the suggestion presented by the High Court of Jharkhand is a positive move towards understanding that, each acid attack survivor deserves dignity, rehabilitation and equal access to justice. Concurrently, new reforms should be mindful of their constitutional equality while also promoting the ongoing efforts to combat gender-based violence. Instead of a gender-centric approach, a victim-centric approach to compensation might ultimately be the most just solution, and have the added advantage of maintaining the protective intent of current laws.
