Allahabad High Court Converts Acid Sale Regulation PIL Into Suo Motu Case After Petitioner Withdraws

The Allahabad High Court has converted a decade-old public interest litigation seeking regulation of acid sale and better compensation for victims into a suo motu proceeding, holding that issues concerning acid attack survivors and control of hazardous substances cannot be allowed to lapse merely because the original petitioner has chosen to withdraw.

The order was passed on December 9 by a bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Vivek Saran in a 2014 PIL, which was originally filed by Anubhav Verma, highlighting the continued availability of acid and the inadequacy of victim compensation mechanisms in Uttar Pradesh.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioner informed the court that the original petitioner was no longer inclined to pursue the litigation. While permitting the petitioner and his counsel to withdraw, the bench made it clear that the matter involved a genuine public cause and could not be treated as ordinary adversarial litigation.

“The interest of justice may be defeated if such litigation is permitted to be withdrawn on the volition of the original petitioner,” court observed, directing that the case be re-registered as a suo motu proceeding.

The court appointed advocates Akansha Mishra and Utkarshini Singh as amici curiae to assist it and listed the matter for further hearing on December 16, 2025, directing the State to complete its instructions.

The PIL has a long history dating back to 2014, when the high court, then headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, took cognizance of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Laxmi v. Union of India, which mandated strict regulation of acid sale and comprehensive compensation schemes for acid attack victims. In its July 1, 2014 order, the high court had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to place on record steps taken to comply with those directions.

Subsequently, the State notified the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014, and informed the court that Poisons (Possession and Sale) Rules had been framed. However, in a strongly worded order dated August 1, 2014, the court found serious flaws in the compensation scheme. It noted that Clause 4 of the scheme appeared to limit eligibility to cases where offenders were untraced and no trial took place, raising the disturbing possibility that victims who identified their attackers or where prosecutions were underway could be excluded from compensation.

The bench pointed out an internal inconsistency in the scheme, where one condition assumed that no trial would take place while another required victims to cooperate in investigation and trial. Holding that such ambiguity undermined access to justice, the court directed the State to revisit the scheme and clearly spell out eligibility conditions.

Court also questioned the adequacy of compensation amounts, observing that Rs. 3 lakh for acid attack victims may not meet the ends of justice given the lifelong medical treatment, multiple surgeries and rehabilitation such victims often require. Similar concerns were expressed regarding compensation for victims of rape and death, with the court calling for a more proactive approach by the State under Section 357A of the CrPC.

On the regulatory side, court had cautioned that notifying rules alone would not suffice and emphasised the need for strict enforcement to prevent unchecked sale of acid and other poisonous substances.

Case Title: Anubhav Verma vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others

Order Date: December 9, 2025

Bench: Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Vivek Saran