The Jharkhand High Court has observed that the State should consider amending the Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, 2016, to remove the disparity between compensation payable to male and female acid attack survivors.

The Court noted that while the 2016 Scheme does not prescribe any upper limit for compensation, its minimum compensation for acid attack victims remains substantially lower than the minimum compensation fixed for female victims under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, while enhancing the compensation awarded to a male acid attack survivor from ₹3 lakh to ₹15 lakh, observed: "Though the maximum compensation of the Scheme of 2016 has not been fixed, but at the same time, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that the minimum compensation as in the Scheme of 2016 is at wide variance to the minimum compensation fixed for female victims in the Scheme of 2019. A decade has passed since the Scheme of 2016 was unveiled and it is time to consider amendment to the amount of compensation fixed in various categories in the said scheme to commensurate with the Scheme of 2019, especially for male victims in order to obliterate the discrimination it accentuates."

Advocate Snehlika Bhagat represented the appellant, while M. Dubey, A.C. to A.G., represented the respondents.

Background

The appellant, an acid attack survivor, challenged the order of a Single Judge refusing to enhance the compensation awarded to him under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, 2016, beyond ₹3 lakh.

According to the appellant, he suffered extensive facial disfigurement and burn injuries after acid was thrown on him in 2012. He underwent numerous plastic surgeries, incurred medical expenses exceeding ₹25 lakh and continued to require corrective treatment. He contended that the compensation awarded neither reflected the gravity of his injuries nor addressed his lifelong physical, psychological and social trauma.

The appellant also questioned the discriminatory treatment under the State's compensation schemes, pointing out that while the 2019 Scheme prescribed substantially higher compensation for female acid attack survivors, male victims continued to receive only the minimum amount under the 2016 Scheme.

Court's Observations

The Court first examined the framework of the Jharkhand Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2016. It noted that although the Scheme prescribes ₹3 lakh as the minimum compensation payable to acid attack victims, it nowhere prescribes any ceiling on the compensation that may ultimately be awarded depending upon the facts of an individual case.

The Bench observed: "A bare perusal of the provisions contained in the Scheme of 2016 and its Schedule clearly demonstrates that there is no upper limit for compensation to be so awarded. Though a compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been disbursed to the writ-petitioner by the District Legal Services Authority but the same does not put fetters on the Court to extend a higher compensation if the facts and circumstances of the case so demand."

The Court thereafter examined the Jharkhand Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2019, framed pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India. It noted that the Scheme specifically applies to female victims and provides substantially higher compensation, ranging from ₹7 lakh to ₹8 lakh for facial disfigurement caused by acid attacks.

Comparing the two schemes, the Bench expressed concern over the disparity in compensation payable to male victims.

The Bench further reiterated that even under the 2016 Scheme there was no statutory upper limit on compensation payable to victims.

It observed: "Even if we confine ourselves to the Scheme of 2016 and at the cost of repetition what is glaring is the absence of any upper limit in the amount payable to a victim as compensation."

The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India (2016), wherein the Supreme Court had recognised that ₹3 lakh was inadequate to rehabilitate acid attack survivors and had held that compensation must extend beyond physical injuries to include rehabilitation, reconstruction surgeries and loss of amenities of life.

Quoting extensively from Parivartan Kendra, the Court noted: "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... 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."

The Bench further observed that compensation in acid attack cases cannot be measured merely by medical bills or physical injuries.

The Court remarked: "What, however, cannot be fathomed is the immense pain, suffering and mental trauma the writ-petitioner must have undergone and is still undergoing. We are aware of the fact that the physical and mental pain and suffering cannot be compensated in terms of money but it is our belief that the same would go a long way in alleviating to a certain extent such trauma and may also assist the writ-petitioner in his rehabilitation."

Taking into account the severity of the appellant's injuries, the absence of any upper cap under the 2016 Scheme and the inadequacy of ₹3 lakh compensation, the Court enhanced the compensation payable to the appellant.

The Bench held: "On the basis of the overall facts and circumstances discussed above and since Rs. 3,00,000/- extended as victim compensation is a meagre amount and the fact that there is no upper limit provided for payment of compensation in the Scheme of 2016, we enhance the amount of compensation to Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Lakhs) payable to the writ-petitioner."

The Court also directed the authorities to reimburse the appellant's remaining medical expenses after verification and to continue reimbursing future treatment expenses, observing that the appellant continued to require corrective surgeries and that claims should be processed expeditiously, keeping in mind that he was an acid attack survivor.

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal in part, the High Court enhanced the compensation payable to the appellant from ₹3 lakh to ₹15 lakh and directed payment of the balance of ₹12 lakh within eight weeks.

The Court further directed the State to expeditiously reimburse the appellant's admissible medical expenses, including future treatment costs, upon submission of bills, while observing that it was time for the State to revisit the 2016 Victim Compensation Scheme to remove the disparity in compensation payable to male acid attack survivors.

Cause Title: Rahul Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:18396-DB).

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: