Jharkhand HC Raises Acid Attack Compensation to Rs 15 Lakh, Flags Gender Disparity in State Scheme

The High Court of Jharkhand condoned a 1,374-day delay, enhanced victim compensation fivefold, and directed the State to clear pending medical bills for a male acid attack survivor who had undergone 14 plastic surgeries.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, led by Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, has enhanced the victim compensation payable to Rahul Kumar — a male acid attack survivor — from Rs 3,00,000 to Rs 15,00,000. The court also directed the State to release the balance of his outstanding medical bills within four weeks. The judgment, pronounced on 19 June 2026 in L.P.A. No. 252 of 2026, arose from a challenge to a Single Judge order dated 27 November 2019 that had declined to enhance compensation beyond the amount already paid under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2016. Along the way, the bench condoned a delay of 1,374 days in filing the appeal, finding the appellant's continuous medical treatment and financial hardship to be sufficient cause. The court also called out a stark disparity between the compensation available to male and female acid attack victims under two separate State notifications.

The Acid Attack and the Road to the High Court

On 31 May 2012, at around 4:00 P.M., Rahul Kumar was studying in his room when a quarrel broke out between his 10-year-old cousin and a neighbourhood boy outside the house. The mother of the neighbourhood boy arrived, began abusing the cousin, and Rahul intervened to stop her from using filthy language. She returned with a bottle of liquid and threw it on his face. The liquid was acid.

The burning was immediate. A police statement was recorded the next day and Chano P.S. Case No. 55/2012 was registered against the accused under Sections 307, 326, 304 and 506/34 of the IPC. The acid corroded Rahul's face, destroyed his eyelids, burnt both ears and the ear cartilage, and caused severe burns to his neck, chest and left upper limb. He had been pursuing a Chartered Accountancy course at the time.

Rahul eventually received Rs 3,00,000 in compensation through the District Legal Services Authority under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2016. Seeking enhancement to Rs 25,00,000, he filed W.P.(C) No. 2683 of 2018 before a Single Judge. That writ petition was disposed of on 27 November 2019 without granting the enhancement, though the Single Judge directed that Rahul be given treatment benefits available under a subsequent 2019 notification. Rahul then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Condoning 1,374 Days of Delay

The appeal was filed with a delay of 1,374 days. The limitation had expired on 4 January 2020, which the appellant's counsel, Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, pointed out coincided with the peak period of Covid-19. The State opposed condonation, arguing the delay was inordinate and that no sufficient cause had been shown.

Mrs. Bhagat submitted that Rahul had faced a stark choice: prefer an appeal within time and wait for financial aid, or prioritise treatment first. She placed on record medical prescriptions and photographs showing the extent of his injuries. By the time of the appeal, Rahul had undergone 14 plastic surgeries, lost a major part of his eyesight, had no source of income, and was being assisted by the High Court Legal Services Committee because his elderly parents could not afford a lawyer. He had also been diagnosed with Degenerative Lumbar Spondylitis as a consequence of heavy medication.

The bench accepted these reasons. It held that in cases of this nature, delay in filing should be considered with utmost sympathy, and that courts cannot be oblivious to the psychological distress and physical injury faced by an acid attack victim. The delay, the bench said, “becomes insignificant in the face of the appellant having been traumatized for life.” I.A. No. 2943 of 2026 was accordingly allowed.

Two Notifications, Two Standards

The substantive dispute turned on the interplay between two State notifications. The first, Notification No. 5190 dated 29 September 2016, established the Jharkhand Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2016. Its Schedule-I fixed Rs 3,00,000 as the minimum compensation for acid attack victims. Critically, the Scheme of 2016 sets no upper limit on the compensation that may be awarded; Clause 5 requires the District Legal Services Authority to assess compensation based on loss caused, treatment costs, and rehabilitation needs.

The second notification, No. 4052 dated 30 July 2019, introduced the Jharkhand Victim Compensation (Amendment) Scheme, 2019. This scheme was framed following the Supreme Court's directions in Nipun Saxena & Anr. v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 565 of 2012) and applies exclusively to female victims. Schedule-II of the 2019 Scheme fixes compensation for acid attack victims on a sliding scale: Rs 7 lakh to Rs 8 lakh for disfigurement of face, Rs 5 lakh to Rs 8 lakh for injury exceeding 50%, Rs 3 lakh to Rs 5 lakh for injury below 50%, and Rs 3 lakh to Rs 4 lakh for injury below 20%.

The bench observed that the minimum compensation for a female victim with facial disfigurement under the 2019 Scheme is Rs 7 lakh, while the minimum for a male victim under the 2016 Scheme remains Rs 3 lakh. A decade had passed since the 2016 Scheme was notified. The bench stated plainly that it was time to consider amending the 2016 Scheme to bring male victim compensation in line with the 2019 Scheme, “especially for male victims in order to obliterate the discrimination it accentuates.” The bench also noted that neither scheme makes any provision for transgender victims.

How the Bench Reasoned on Enhanced Compensation

The State's counsel argued that since Rs 3,00,000 had already been paid and the 2016 Scheme applied to Rahul, no interference was warranted. The bench rejected this reading. It pointed to Clause 5 of the 2016 Scheme, which contains no cap on the maximum compensation payable. The Rs 3,00,000 figure in Schedule-I is a floor, not a ceiling.

Mrs. Bhagat relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 571, where the Court had held that Rs 3 lakh would not be of any help to an acid attack victim and that compensation must account for the victim's inability to lead a full life. The bench found this reasoning directly applicable.

The bench also drew on the photographs and medical records placed before it. Rahul's face, even after multiple surgeries, continued to show the physical deformities caused by the attack. He had been pursuing a CA course before the incident; those plans had been entirely destroyed. The bench acknowledged that money cannot compensate physical and mental pain but held that enhanced compensation would assist in rehabilitation and alleviate trauma to some extent.

On the question of future medical expenses, the bench noted that Rahul had earlier filed Contempt Case (Civil) No. 133 of 2022. That contempt application was disposed of on 18 November 2022 after the State paid Rs 4,21,197 out of a claimed Rs 18,21,588 in medical expenses. The State had raised objections to certain bills. The bench directed that if any bills required clarification, the State should seek an immediate response from Rahul and, once queries were resolved, release the balance without delay. The bench declined to direct payment of Rs 5,00,000 claimed as future compensation, holding that reimbursement should be of actual expenses incurred. For future corrective surgeries, the State was directed to process bills expeditiously once submitted, and to consider making payment directly to the treating hospital where possible.

Directions on Gender Discrimination and the Scheme

Mrs. Bhagat had framed several questions before the bench, including whether the differential compensation for male and female victims was discriminatory and violative of Article 21 and the right to equal protection of law. She also raised the complete absence of any provision for transgender victims in either scheme.

The bench did not strike down the notifications but made its position clear. It observed that acid does not discriminate between victims on the basis of gender, and that the physical and mental suffering of male and female victims is comparable. The disparity between the 2016 and 2019 Schemes was described as a discrimination that needed to be obliterated. The bench called for the State to consider amending the 2016 Scheme to align it with the 2019 Scheme, and to include transgender victims within its ambit.

The bench also addressed the Single Judge's approach of confining Rahul to the four corners of the notification. It held that the absence of an upper limit in the 2016 Scheme meant the court was not so constrained, and that the actual losses — mental trauma, psychological damage, social desertion, loss of educational and employment opportunity, and inability to lead a normal life — had not been properly evaluated in the impugned order.

Order

The Division Bench allowed L.P.A. No. 252 of 2026 and disposed of it with the following directions:

• The delay of 1,374 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 2943 of 2026 stands allowed.
• The victim compensation payable to Rahul Kumar is enhanced from Rs 3,00,000 to Rs 15,00,000. Since Rs 3,00,000 has already been received, the balance of Rs 12,00,000 shall be paid within eight weeks of receipt or production of a copy of this order.
• The outstanding balance of medical expenses — from the claimed amount of Rs 18,21,588 minus what has already been paid — shall be released within four weeks, subject to Rahul submitting the necessary vouchers and bills if not already submitted.
• Bills for future corrective surgeries shall be processed expeditiously by the concerned respondent, with direct payment to the treating hospital considered where applicable.
• Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

The order was pronounced on 19 June 2026 and uploaded on 24 June 2026.