Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2012 DIGILAW 755 (SC)

Laxmi v. Union of India

2012-08-31

ANIL R.DAVE, R.M.LODHA

body2012
ORDER : On behalf of Union of India, an affidavit has been filed by Shri J.L. Chugh, Joint Secretary (Judicial) in the Ministry of Home Affairs. 2. In the above affidavit, it is stated that Criminal Law Amendment Bill, 2012 has been approved by the Cabinet on July 19, 2012 which has the proposal for insertion of Sections 326A and 326B in the Indian Penal Code for making the acid attack a specific offence. 3. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India submits that since the present Parliament Session shall expire on September 7, 2012, it is unlikely that the above bill is introduced in the Parliament in this Session. However, he submits that the above bill will be introduced in the Parliament in the ensuing Winter Session. 4. Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with the above statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General. 5. In the order dated February 11, 2011, this Court, inter alia, observed that as one of the matters of concern in regard to acid attacks is the free availability of acids, the Central Government and State Governments may also consider making appropriate provision for regulation of sale of acid so that it is not easily or readily available to offenders. 6. Mr. Mohan Parasaran submits that regulation of sale of acid is the State subject and the appropriate provision for regulation of sale of acid has to be made by the State Governments. He, however, submits that the Ministry of Home Affairs shall convene a meeting of the Chief Secretaries/concerned Secretaries of the State Governments and the Administrators of the Union Territories for evolving a consensus in regard to the regulation of sale of acid in the States/Union Territories. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the Notification issued by the State of Sikkim amending Sikkim Trade Licence and Miscellaneous Provision Rules, 2011 by inserting sub-rule 17A in the said Rules. 8. In our view, the suggestion of Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General appears to be proper. 9. Let the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India convene a meeting of the Chief Secretaries/concerned Secretaries of the State Governments and the Administrators of the Union Territories to discuss the enactment of appropriate provision for effective regulation of sale of acid in the States/Union Territories. 10. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General appears to be proper. 9. Let the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India convene a meeting of the Chief Secretaries/concerned Secretaries of the State Governments and the Administrators of the Union Territories to discuss the enactment of appropriate provision for effective regulation of sale of acid in the States/Union Territories. 10. Let the matter come up for consideration on November 9, 2012. 11. In the meanwhile, the Chief Secretaries of the States of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Praesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttrakhand, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Goa, Punjab, Gujarat, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand and Administrators of Union Territories of Dadra, Nagar Haveli, Andaman & Nicobar and Chandigarh shall ensure that the responses/affidavits of compliance are filed on behalf of the respective State Governments/Union Territories within eight weeks from today.