International Law: Comparative Law

Acid Attacks have been reported in every region of the world, with particularly high incidence in South Asia and in South Asian communities. Most states punish acid violence under the existing norms prescribed for violent crime or gender-based crime (e.g., attempted murder, assault, domestic violence.)




Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, perpetrators of acid violence target women and girls who dress “immodestly” or fail to wear the hijab. Religious extremists have also used acid as a weapon to terrorize girls who attend school. Afghanistan’s elimination of violence against Women law (EVAW 2009) specifically criminalizes acid attacks and includes a 10-year life sentence for convicted attackers.
Implementation of the EVAW has stalled and in 2013 the United Nations found that “Afghan authorities need to do more to build on the gains made so far in implementing the EVAW law”.

 

Pakistan
A large percentage of acid attacks in Pakistan occur in the context of domestic violence between married couples or when women and girls have “shamed” their families. The Lower House of Parliament unanimously passed the 2011 Acid Throwing Crime Bill, which includes a sentence of 14 years to life and prison and a fine of 1 core Pakistani Rupees. Under the new law, the conviction rate has increased from 6 percent to 18 percent. In addition to the Bill, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has been a strong force in combating acid attacks and ensuring justice. At the same time, critics have noted that the Bill does not ensure compensation to survivors and the patriarchal attitudes prevalent in the police force and Judiciary creates barriers to ensuring justice for survivors.


Uganda
Perpetrators of acid violence in African countries target both men and women. In Uganda, for example, women comprise 57 percent of acid attack victims. The primary reported reasons for attacks - “relationship conflicts” – mirror the Asian context. Property and business disputes also motivate acid violence in Uganda. A number of laws including the National Environment Act, the Control of Agricultural Chemicals Act, No. 1 of 2007, and the East African Community Customs Management Act No. 1 of 2005 regulate the sale of acid and chemicals in Uganda.


Cambodia
In Cambodia, men comprise about 50 percent of acid attack survivors. In December 2011, Cambodia enacted The Law on Regulation of Concentrated Acid, which includes the maximum sentence of 30 years. The Acid Attack Law limits the sale of acid, but like other laws on acid violence, Cambodia’s Acid Attack Law fails to provide adequate guarantees for medical or rehabilitative services for survivors. Cambodia sentenced the first person under the law in January 2013- 2 years after enacting the law- illustrating the need of greater implementation and state action. Moreover, the limits on the sale/transport of acid have not been finalized and activists have called for ensuring the sub-decree on the sale and transportation of acid. The Cambodian Acid Survivors Charity (CASC) Reports that a litre of battery acid still sells for Rs. 50 on the streets. Finally, while the Acid Attack Law, includes measures for free medical treatment at Government health facilities and free Legal Assistance of State, Acid Attack Survivors have not yet benefitted from these guarantees. Even with the shortcomings in the law, CASC Reports a “60 percent drop in the number of acid burn cases (from 25 cases in 2011 to only 15 cases in 2012),” showing the impact of strong acid violence legislation.


Bangladesh:
Bangladesh consistently reports the highest incidence of acid attacks in the world. Acid violence in Bangladesh disproportionally impacts women, who comprise 82 presents of survivors and victims. Like in India, most perpetrators in Bangladesh attack women as a result of refused marriage proposals or sexual advances. In 2002, the government of Bangladesh enacted two laws to curb acid violence, the Acid Crime Control Act and Acid Crime Prevention Act. These laws represent the most comprehensive legislative action on acid attacks in the world. Both laws leave room for improvement and stronger implementation, but acid violence has decreased steadily in Bangladesh since the passage of these laws.
The Acid Crime Prevention Act (ACA) primarily governs the sale, transport, storage, and disposal of acid. At the national and district level, it establishes councils to ensure implementation of the Act. The mandated members of the National Council are comprised of representatives from the Home Ministry, Ministry of Women and Children Affairs, Industry Ministry, Ministry of Commerce, Health Ministry, Women members of Parliament, the President of the Federation of Bangladesh Chamber of Commerce and Industries, a chemistry professor, experts, and representatives from NGOs. The National Acid Control Council’s specific duties include:
(a) To make recommendations for formulating policy for controlling of production,
transportation, storing, selling and use of Acid and controlling the import of the same.
(b) To formulate necessary policy-with a view to preventing the possible damaging reaction and misuse of acid and for taking action for implementation of the same.
(c) To formulate policy regarding providing of medical treatment, rehabilitation and legal aid to the victims of acid attacks and to take steps for the implementation of the same.

(d) To take up necessary educational; and publicity programmes for making the public aware of the negative and devastating effect of misuse of acid.
(e) To conduct any research or survey to collect information regarding use and abuse of action.
(f) To maintain contact with all Ministers and organizations, relating to acid attacks and to coordinate all activities relating to the same.
(g) To formulate policy for the efficient management of effluents for the prevention of possible damage caused by acid or acid mixture discharged as effluent by industrial units in the process of production, and to take steps for the implementation and supervision of the same.
(h) To take all such necessary steps for the execution of the aforesaid duties and
responsibilities.
Before 2002, the Government would regularly take ten years to prosecute in an acid attack case. Today, the Acid Crime Control Act (ACCA) provides that all investigations must be completed by the “concerned Police Officer within 30 days.” Special Acid Crime Tribunals at the district level must complete all cases within 90 days from the date of receipt of the case. The ACCA provides severe sentences based on the body part injured in the attack. An acid injury to the face, breasts, or reproductive organs calls for a life sentence or the death penalty and a fine of about
Indian Rs. 60,000,


International Law
Article 51 of the Constitution of India provides: “The state shall endeavor to (a) promote international peace and security… (c) To foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized people with one another.” The Supreme Court has relied on Article 51 when affirming India’s obligations under international human rights conventions and treaties. In Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court held, “It is now an accepted rule of judicial construction that regard must be had to international conventions and norms constructing domestic law when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in the domestic law.”
The most useful human rights conventions and treaties for activists, advocates, and survivors working on acid attacks are:
- ICCPR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by India in 1968.
- ICESCR: International Covenant on Economic, Cultural, and Social Rights, ratified by India in 1968.
- CEDAW: Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, ratified by India in 1993.
Specific facts in each case may also invoke the fundamental rights protections enshrined in the following conventions:
- CERD: Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, ratified by India in
1968.
- CRC: Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by India in 1992.
Finally, an acid attack survivor’s injuries may result in a disability and trigger the protections in the:
- CRPD: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by India in 2007.
These human rights conventions provide wide protections and guarantees across a spectrum of fundamental rights. This section briefly outlines treaty provisions that obligate the government of India to take immediate steps to eliminate acid attacks and to ensure justice for survivors.


The Constitution and Statutory Provisions

v Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Article 14 is not mere formal equality; it also encompasses substantive equality. This means that equality cannot simply exist on paper. The State has to take positive action, including taking special measures to ensure equality. As women in India are disproportionately the victims of acid attacks, and acid attacks largely constitute gendered violence, women require special protection from acid violence under the law.
v Article 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
The Supreme Court in catena of judgments (Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Union Territory of Delhi & Ors [1981SCR (2)516]) has recognized that the right to life includes the right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment.
v Section 320 - Grievous Hurt: Acid Attacks are considered “grievous hurt” as any permanent disfigurement, disability, or destruction of a body part is included in this section.
v Section 325: The punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt is a maximum of seven years. No minimum punishment is prescribed.
v Section 326: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt through a dangerous weapon or another means: A “corrosive substance” is specified as being a “dangerous means”, hence acid attacks will be covered. The Punishment under this Section is for a maximum period of life imprisonment, or a period up to 10 years. There is no minimum punishment prescribed.
The Criminal Law (Amendment ) Act, 2013, made the following Changes:
v Section 100: When the right to private defense of the body extends to causing death: An act of throwing acid or administering acid, or an attempt to throw or administer acid which reasonably causes the apprehension that grievous hurt will be the consequence of such an attack.
Thus acid attacks have been included under the list of grievous crimes under which the right to private defense extends to causing death. This means that an acid attack is so grave that a survivor may be justified in killing the perpetrator to defend herself from the attack.
v Section 326A: Whoever causes permanent or partial damage, deformity, burns, maims, disfigures or disables any part of parts of the body of a person with the intention or knowing that it is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with either simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term of at least 10 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life, and a fine.
The fine shall be paid to the victim, and shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the victim.
v Section 326B: Attempting to throw or administer acid with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage, deformity, burns, maim, disfigure, disable, grievous hurt shall be imprisoned with either simple or rigorous imprisonment for at least five years, up to seven years, and a fine.
Acid includes any substances of acidic, corrosive or burning character that is capable of causing bodily injury which leads to scars, disfigurement, temporary or permanent disability.
For the purpose of both these sections, the damage or deformity need not have to be irreversible.
v Section 166A: A public servant who refuses to record any information in relation to an offence under Section 326 A and 326 B (as well as some other sections), shall be imprisoned with rigorous imprisonment for a term of at least six months which may extend up to two years, and be liable to pay a Fine.

v Section 166B: Whoever is in charge of any hospital, whether public or private, run by the Central or State Government, a local body, or any person, and who contravenes Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be imprisoned for a term which may extend up to one year, or with fine, or both. Section 357A governs payment of fines to victims of crimes.


The Code of Criminal Procedure was similarly amended by the same Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013:
v Section 154: When the information is given by the woman victim of a crime under Section 326A, 326B which are the sections dealing with acid attacks (and other sections of the IPC), the information will be recorded by a woman police officer or any woman officer.
v Section 154 (a): Provides for special provisions for survivors of offences under Section 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376E or Section 509 of the IPC (sexual harassment, criminal force to a woman with intent to disrobe, watching a woman in a private act, stalking, rape, and aggravated rape). When an offence under the Section has been committed and the victim has been permanently or temporarily mentally or physically disabled, then the police officer shall, in the presence of a special educator or interpreter, record information from the victim at the victim’s residence of any place of the victim’s choosing. The recording of such information may be video graphed if needed/Section 154 (a) seems to have overlooked acid attack victims as Section 326A and 326B have not been included. This might be particularly problematic as in most cases acid attack victims suffer from significant physical disability following the attack.

v Section 164 (5A) (a): makes similar provisions 154 (a), for a Judicial Magistrate to record the statement taking the assistance of a special educator or interpreter in cases wherein the victim is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, and for the statement to be video graphed.
This statement shall be considered in lieu of examination in chief under the Indian Evidence Act. Again, acid attacks under Section 326A and 326B have not been included within this section.

Important ongoing Acid Attack Cases of Allahabad High Court

 

Case Name

Facts of the Cases & Order passed by the Court

Public Interest
Litigation No. 68901 of 2013, Ayushi Dubey & others Vs.
State of U.P. & others.

This is a case of an acid attack on a poor girl of District Jaunpur, in which the HRLN( Human Rights Law Network) law interns played a historic role. A news report had been published about the acid attack in village Machli Gaon, Sub Division Badlapur, Distirct Jaunpur on 9th November, 2013 in a Hindi daily Dainik Jagran and an English daily Pioneer. On the basis of the news report, a Fact-Finding Team consisting of 10 law students was constituted and it was decided that the team would visit the village, and as per the decision, the law interns went to the village on 20.11.2013 and met the survivor, her family members and villagers. The law interns also visited Varanasi on 21.11.2013 and went to the nursing home in Babatpur area of Varanasi where the girl was initially admitted. It was found that the survivor was subjected to this cruelty by a school teacher of that very village, who had been coercing and pressurizing her for marriage. Once, when the survivor was going outside the village, the school teacher caught hold of her hand and tried to molest her, the girl protested and slapped him when the teacher threatened her of dire consequences. On the night of 7/8th November, 2013 at around 12.00 a.m. at mid night one Vimal Maurya threw acid on the victim girl and her mother. They both were taken to the local Primary Health Centre who referred them to the District Hospital and the District Hospital advised them to go for better treatment to Varanasi. Then they both went to Varanasi and were admitted to a Pragya nursing Home for several days. The survivors belonged to a very poor family and they took take loan for better treatment. Later, they left the nursing home as they had no money to continue the treatment. A Public Interest Litigation was filed, in which the interns appeared in person to argue the case before the division bench of Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud and Justice Sanjay Mishra J., who passed a very impressive order, of which the relevant portion of the judgment is quoted in this report :
“At the initial stage, steps must be taken to ensure that due medical care is provided to the victim and to her mother. For this purpose, we direct the Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur who is the sixth Respondent to constitute a medical team of doctors and experts to examine the condition of the victim and her mother and to make an assessment of what steps are required to be taken to ensure their treatment and rehabilitation. We direct that all the necessary measures shall be taken forthwith at the cost and expense of the State. From the report of the students, it is clear that the family is in indigent circumstances and is unable to meet the expenses of medical care. The sixth Respondent shall take necessary steps to provide due treatment and shall ensure that an ambulance is made available to transport the victim and her mother from their place of residence to the concerned hospital and for their due examination.
A medical report shall be prepared and should be placed before this Court on 6th January, 2014.
However, we direct that the sixth Respondent shall not wait for further directions of the court and shall, subject to the consent of the victim and her family, take necessary steps to provide rehabilitation and other medical treatment as required in the interest of the victim and her mother. The court has been informed by the learned Standing Counsel that a First Information Report was registered in the present case and a charge-sheet has been submitted to the competent court. The court should be appraised, on the next date of hearing, of the further progress in the matter. We direct the District Judge, Jaunpur to monitor the progress in the matter and to submit his report before the Court on the status of the case by the next date of hearing. A copy of this order shall be made available by the Registrar General of this court to the District Judge, Jaunpur by facsimile immediately.
We also direct the State Government to inform the court as to whether it has framed any scheme in accordance with the provisions of Section 357A of the Cr.P.C. If a scheme is not framed till date, the State Government shall ensure that a scheme is framed at an early date.
We also direct that the District Magistrate, Jaunpur (Respondent No. 4) shall collect, through a responsible officer, copies of the medical bills in respect of the line of treatment which has been administered to the victim and her mother, by their family. Before the next date of hearing, the fourth Respondent shall, after due consideration of the expenses which has been incurred, take a final decision in regard to the reimbursement of the expenses and payment shall be made
immediately without waiting for further directions of the court. The matter shall stand over for further hearing.

Public Interest
Litigation No. 23317 of 2013, “Chirag Sahyog Sansthan Vs. Union of India & others”

 

This is a Public Interest Litigation on the problem of acid attack on the women in Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioner is an Assistant Professor in Allahabad University in the Department of Commerce and runs the organization ‘Chirag Sahyog Sansthan’.
The Petitioner took the question of four sisters of District Shamli who were victims of the acid attack, and there is other several cases of acid attacks in U.P. It was also placed by the Petitioner that in the case of acid attacks, only the charges of grievous hurt including Section 329, 322 and 325 are used. It was also raised by the Petitioner that there were no restrictions on the sale of acid and it is available in the open market at a cheap rate. The Petitioner’s organization raised the question of classifying the acid attack as a separate offence, with a harsher punishment, as it creates disfigurement and disability to the survivors. The Petitioner dealt with the various recommendations given by the Law Commission and National Women’s Commission in the matter. The Writ Petition was heard by the division bench of Hon’ble Chief Justice Shiv Kirti Singh and Justice Dilip Gupta who granted Union of India and State of U.P. four weeks’ time to make available to this court the response of the two governments in this matter. It also directed the Union of India and the State Government to think about the issue and suggest measures to prevent the recurring incidents of acid throwing on women by curbing the supply or availability of acid in the open market as it is available without any control.

 

Public Interest
Litigation No. 28874 of 2014, “Anshika Singh & others Vs. Union of India & others”

 

This Public Interest Litigation is based on an investigation conducted by the students under the internship of the Human Rights Law Network. The students responded to the newspaper reports which appeared on 03.05.2014 in a leading newspaper, Hindustan, highlighting a case of an acid attack in the area of Allahabad district.
Shushila bore the brunt of the acid attack which took place allegedly at 2.30 a.m. on 02.05.2014 and succumbed to her injuries at 4.00 p.m. after being admitted to the Burn Ward of S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad. The victim of 27 years of age had received 50-60% burn injuries. The sister of the victim and a three-year-old son of the victim who were present in the house also received burn injuries. The sister of the victim namely Sheela tried to resist the attacker and was also injured.
On 04.05.2014, a fact-finding team of law students visited the village and recorded the statement of the family members of the deceased acid attack victim and other persons and prepared a report. The victims are poor and not in a position to bear the expensive cost of treatment.
The Public Interest Litigation was heard by Hon’ble Chief Justice D.Y.
Chandrachud and Justice Dilip Gupta on 23.05.2014. The Court directed with an exhaustive order to the State that before the court proceed to issue a final direction in regard to the plea of compensation, it would be appropriate if the sister of the victim and the young infant are medically examined at the SRN Hospital, Allahabad. The Chief Medical Superintendent of SRN Hospital, Allahabad is directed to refer the two patients to the burn ward for medical examination and direct the District Magistrate, Allahabad to issue appropriate direction for the provision of transport facility to the two patients from their place of residence to SRN Hospital and for return. The report of the medical examination shall be placed
before this Court in a sealed cover by the learned Standing Counsel on the next date of hearing on 29th May, 2014.
Then the matter was put before on 29th May, 2014 in which the Hon'ble Court again directed the State Government that all the expenses of the treatment shall be borne by the State Government and the compensation will be decided in the next date of hearing.

 

CONCLUSION
The cumulative conclusion and the entire picture that emerges is that a drastic initiative is required to combat the growing menace of acid attacks, which is a heinous tool of the worst kind in a chauvinistic society, where ideas and actions are controlled by patriarchal mindsets. It is the need of the hour that the following measures may be suggested to the legislature and the administration to reduce, restrict and curb these gender- based attacks.
It is required that, special tribunals be created , which may function as special courts for the expeditious and speedy disposal of the a cid attack cases. It is needed that a required amendment be made so that, the Judges hearing the acid attack matters should preferably be women and should be specially trained and sensitized. That a special public prosecutor be appointed to assist the prosecution to render justice to the victim.
A special contingency fund and corpus be created to help the family of the acid victim who dies, as well as the survivors.

It should be suggested that, a suitable amendment be made in the legislation to ensure that bail is not granted to the offenders thus, making the provisions more stringent.
That the legislature is pressurized to bring an amendment that anticipatory bail should not be granted to the acid offenders even if the provisions of the anticipatory bail are introduced by the State Legislature.


References:
· Justice J.S. Verma, Justice Leila Seth & Gopal Subramanium, Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law 471-476 (2013)
· Law Commission of India, The Inclusion of Acid Attacks, 8.
· Law Commission of India, The Inclusion of Acid Attacks, 13
· High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, State of Karnataka vs. Joseph Rodrigues (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1065, 1066, and 1239/2004) (final judgment,
2006)
· NCW, Annual Report 2008-2009, Annexure IV. On 29 January 2009, the NCW issued a revised version of the Scheme, which is the version analyzed here.

 

Sr. No.

Word

Meaning

A.

Indian Evidence Act

This Act may be called the Indian Evidence Act,1872. It extends to the whole of India [Except the State of Jammu and Kashmir] and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Courts martial, [other than Courts-martial convened under the Army Act.,] (44 & 45 Vict., c.58) [the Naval Discipline Act (29 & 30 Vict., c 109) or the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act. 1934] (34 of 1934) [or the Air Force Act] 7 Geo. 5, c. 51) but not to affidavits presented to any Court to any Court or Officer, not to proceedings before an arbitrator and it shall come into force on the first day of September, 1872.

 

1995 SCC (1) 14, JT 1994 (7) 183 (19 Oct. 1994), available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1765970/
· Acid Crime Prevention Act (17 March 2002), Chapter II (4) (ii)
· Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (1997) 6 SCC 241, AIR
1997; see also Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. Chopra (1999) 625 SC 634, AIR 1999
· Parivartan Kendra vs. Union of India & Others (WP (C) 876/2013), Supreme
Court of India.
· CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 19, Violence against
Women (1992), para. 1, available at
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendatios/recomm.htm.
· ICESCR, Article 13
· ICESCR, Article 6
· CEDAW, Article 10
· CEDAW, Article 11
· CERD, Article 1.
· Aarti Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. WP (2014)
· National Commission for Women, Annual Report (Delhi 2008-2009): 31.


About the Author:
Smriti Kartikeya
, Law Graduate from Dr. Ram Manohar
Lohiya National Law University, enrolled in the Bar Council in 2013, practicing Lawyer in Allahabad High Court, fellow of Bertha Foundation, State Coordinator, and Human Rights Law Network, awarded by the Uttar Pradesh Government on “Nari Siksha Nari Suraksha” in 2014 in collaboration with Hindustan Newspaper.

Deeksha Dwivedi, 4th Year Law Student, Allahabad University, actively involved in Human Rights Law Network, awarded by the Uttar Pradesh Government on “Nari Siksha Nari Suraksha” in 2014 in collaboration with Hindustan Newspaper, worked with the State Commission for the Rights of the Children of Delhi State, scholarship-holder under Bertha Foundation.

 

For Further Reading:
· Law Commission of India, 226th Report on inclusion of Acid Attacks as Specific offences the Indian Penal Code and a Law for Compensation for Victims of Crime (July 2009), available at http://indiankanoon.org/ doc/870066215/(citing prosecutions for attempted murder in the United Kingdom at page 34, and Jamaica at page 32).
· Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2008
· Roger Hood and Surya Deva, eds., Confronting Capital Punishment in Asia: Human Rights, Politics and Public Opinion (Oxford University Press, 2013), 83-85; Law Commission of India, 226th Report of the Inclusion of Acid Attacks as Specific Offences the Indian Penal Code and a law for Compensation for Victims of Crime (July 2009), 22
· High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, State of Karnataka vs. Joseph Rodrigues (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1065, 1066, and 1239/2004) (final judgment, 2006)
· Aarti Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. WP (2014)
· Human Rights Council, Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women its Causes and Consequences, Rashida Majnoo, Mission to India (April 2014), available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/

Points to Ponder

· To ensure survivors’ physical rehabilitation, the judiciary should focus on the long-term medical treatment required by survivors. While the physiological effects of acid violence are well documented, there is less academic, media, or legal understanding of the precise long-term surgical and other medical needs of acid attack survivors. Of particular significance in terms of compensation is a greater understanding of the complexity and length of surgical rehabilitation. Surgery is one of the most important and expensive aspects of recovery, and any compensation awarded to the survivor is likely to be spent on this type of treatment. Another essential and often neglected aspect of rehabilitation is physiotherapy. Scarring in areas such as the neck or upper arms can significantly reduce mobility, and the medical community has long agreed that intensive physiotherapy is critical to combating this. Compensation awards must be sufficient to cover all of a survivor’s long-term physical medical needs, including surgery and physiotherapy.
· To ensure survivors’ social and economic rehabilitation, the judiciary should investigate the social and economic ramifications of acid violence. For many survivors, the medical and psychological trauma caused by an acid attack is compounded by a sense of isolation and financial insecurity. Overcoming these concerns can be the most devastating aspect of recovery, and there is as yet little support available to survivors. A programme of social rehabilitation, encompassing legal, educational, employment and housing assistance, is strongly recommended. Compensation should take into consideration the fact that while many survivors or acid violence struggle to gain employment due to their injuries, this does not mean that they do not want to earn a living, live in their own house, and provide for their family.
· The growing incidence of acid violence creates a n immediate demand for the formation of the Special Tribunal/Court to adjudicate the matter of Acid Victims. And the establishment of special vocational training centers at the Regional Level in the different States is crucial for enhancing job opportunities for the Acid Attack Survivors.

 

Glossary of Terms

Sr. No.

Word

Meaning

1.

Hijab

It is a veil that covers the head and chest, which is particularly worn by some Muslim women beyond the age of puberty in the presence of adult males outside of their immediate family.

2.

Patriarchal

Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property; in the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children.

3.

Mandated

given (someone) authority to act in a certain way.

4.

Effluent

It is an out flowing of water or gas from a natural body of water, or from a manmade structure.

5.

Tribunals

A tribunal is a group of people who oversee a trial

6.

Gendered Violence

“Gender‐based violence against women” shall mean violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately.

 

○○भारतीय राज्यों के स्थापना दिवस

 

अरुणाचल प्रदेश- 20 फरवरी 1987

 

असम- 26 जनवरी 1950

 

आध्र प्रदेश- 1 नवंबर 1956

 

ओडिशा- 1 अप्रैल 1936

 

उत्तर प्रदेश- 24 जनवरी 1950

 

उत्तराखंड- 9 नवंबर 2000

 

कर्नाटक- 1 नवंबर 1956

 

करल- 1 नवंबर 1956

 

गजरात- 1 मई 1960

 

गोवा- 30 मई 1987

 

छतीसगढ़- 01 नवंबर 2000

 

झारखड- 15 नवंबर 2000

 

तमिलनाडु- 1 नवंबर 1956

 

तलंगाना- 02 जून 2014

 

तरिपुरा- 21 जनवर 1972

 

नागालैंड- 01 दिसंबर 1963

 

पजाब- 01 नवंबर 1966

 

पश्चिम बंगाल- 26 जनवरी 1950

 

बिहार- 22 मार्च 1912

 

मणिपुर- 21 जनवरी 1972

 

मध्य प्रदेश- 01 नवंबर 1956

 

महाराष्ट्र- 1 मई 1960

 

मिजोरम- 20 फ़रवरी 1987

 

मघालय- 21 जनवरी 1972

 

राजस्थान- 30 मार्च 1949

 

सिक्किम- 16 मई 1975

 

हरियाणा- 1 नवंबर 1966

 

हिमाचल प्रदेश- 25 जनवरी 1971


Mayank Rai

Hi, My name is Mayank Rai. I found that Blogging is an easiest way to share your knowledge with everyone & learn something new from there.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post