Speedy trial, severe punishment can prevent acid throwing
Sunday, 14 March 2010
MS Siddiqui
ACID throwing or vitriolage is a crime of violent assault against another person. Acid is a chemical compound that can burn and case damage.
Acid throwing, a common crime in South Asia and Indo China, calls for serious legal deterrent.
As these countries have different interpretations of the crime, they are trying to address it from different perspectives.
The Supreme Court of India sought the opinion of provincial governments on the possibility of banning free sale of acid in the backdrop of growing instances of acid throwing, particularly on women.
The Indian Supreme Court did it as the provinces had reservation against a total ban on sale of acid.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled out ordering a total ban on free sale of acid, but favoured a restrictive sale depending on the stand of the provincial governments.
The issue of banning free sale of acid resurfaced during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation filed in 2006 by a Delhi-based minor girl, Laxmi, whose arms, face and other body parts were disfigured in an acid attack.
The human right group pressing for a complete ban on free sale of acid since 2006, alleged that the central government of India did nothing in the wake of growing acid attacks. The stand of different provincial governments was considered as roadblocks to tackling young girls becoming victims of acid attack. They argued why the apex court, which had banned sale of eggs in religious places and the use of plastic bags, could not ban the open sale of acid.
The Indian Central Government which was not willing to make acid attack a "serious offence" or curb the sale of acid, stated that it was working on the issue.
Asked to make a law like in Bangladesh to regulate and restrict the sale of acid to check its use as a weapon, it stated that the step would not be practical and it would lead to "inspector Raj".
The provincial governments were almost unanimous against the ban of free sale of acid. They considered it as not practical since acid is needed for many purposes.
They also opposed licensing the sale of acid on the grounds that it could lead to inspector Raj.
In view of the opinion of the central and provincial governments and the stand of the apex court the human right groups called for an amendment to the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code for dealing with the offence. They also called for a compensation provision in the law.
The central government of India stated that most provincial governments were "in favour of strengthening the provisions of Indian Penal Code to take care of the offences of acid throwing and attack by other corrosive materials as well as by hot water, treating them as "special offences".
The Indian National Commission for Women called for making a law, stipulating compensation for victims of acid attack. It also suggested for a new provision in the Indian Penal Code, making any attempt to throw acid, a serious offence punishable by not less than seven years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs one lakh.
In Pakistan, women's organisation and human right groups called for restrictions on the sale of acid. They also suggested for making acid traders responsible for the crime. But the government in Pakistan responded like India stations that such law could be abused like in Bangladesh.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, which took the case of NAILA FARHAT, suo motto asked the Pakistan government to make an exclusive Acid Crime Prevention Act for dealing with acid attack cases. It also asked for an Acid Control Act, to regulate the sale and purchase of acid, as done by Bangladesh in 2002.
The Pakistani apex court also asked the government to provide free medical treatment to all acid burn victims and provide them with legal aid and rehabilitation.
Bangladesh is the only country having a law to control the acid business. In 2002 the government passed two Acts, the Acid Crime Prevention Act 2002 and Acid Control Act 2002, restricting import and sale of acid in open markets and making acid throwing a serious crime.
The law stipulates establishment of a national acid control council fund, a rehabilitation centre for victims of acid crimes, treatment of victims of acid crimes, legal aid for the victims, closure of shops to prevent the sale of acid and banning transport engaged in carrying acid, suspension of acid selling licences, capital punishment for acid throwers and a fine of up to Tk 0.1 million, trial by special tribunals, trial in the absence of the offenders, and empowering the magistrate to take witness evidence anywhere.
Moreover, the acid control rule issued in 2005 seeks to restrict trading, production, transportation and use of acid, under a lengthy procedure.
The rule requires obtaining of separate licences for the import production, storage, transportation, sale and use against payment of fees.
Import of Acid from Ministry of Home- fee Tk 1,00,000
Production of Acid from Ministry of Home- fee Tk 150,000
Acid Sales from Deputy Commissioner- fee Tk 5,000
Acid Users from Deputy Commissioner- fee Tk 25,000-7,000
Acid transportation : DC fee : Tk 100
Some acids need permission from Narcotics Department, import license from Controller of Import of Export, permission from Ministry of Commerce, no objection from Ministry of Industry and police clearance from local police station.
The carrier must obtain a special permission of the vehicle to carry acid and in case of missing and destruction, the carrier will be responsible except any reason of natural calamity or accident etc.
No license will be renewed if applied after expiry of licence. In case of cancellation of licence, no appeal to any court is allowed. Unfortunately the ministries, departments and DC office has their own responsibility and the officials are not keen to take the extra work making the licensing process very time consuming and over-burdened with bureaucratic bottleneck.
It is more interesting that as per Acid rule, the sellers are not allowed to sell until a authorized officer (Administrative Magistrate) unveil the cover in a formal visit to store at a time convenient to assigned magistrate. This is not end of the story, after some much bureaucratic process of import, store and a cover unveiling occasion, the sale is allowed only to authorized buyers and all must be documented for inspection and control of appreciate authority and law enforcers.
This control is only possible in paper not in practice. Unlike any other country, it focus on control of business not the crime. Sale of acid (sulphuric and nitric acid) is totally controlled under an unrealistic Act and rule. Jewellers and other small metallic product producers use acid widely to melt gold and other metals, and unfortunately there is no human and other mechanism to have effective monitoring to control the use and sale of the acid in each and every corner of the country. The application of these laws are limited to approval of acid trade. This makes the process only of 'Inspector Raj' and 'DC Raj' (words taken from the opinion of Indian supreme court) with out prevention of crime of Acid burning.
The restrictions on the trade made licencing process complicated and expensive for the traders. The law as well as the rule in Bangladesh is different from those in other countries. It may not be good for the economy. The law controlling the trade does not comply with basic human right. It focuses on trade and production and not on the crimes.
The civil society and the NGOs always call for action against traders in case of any acid incidence. It makes the job easier for the administration. It can take action against the acid traders in any locality. These pressure groups convinced policy makers to make laws.
But the similar groups in India and Pakistan could not yet convince their policy makers to go for similar laws. But the number of acid victims in Bangladesh has been increasing by the day, with no sign of preventing the crime.
The acid crime is similar in South Asia. The laws in Pakistan and India seek punish the criminals, rather than curb the business. Bangladesh should prevent the crime by amending its criminal procedure code for speedy trial and severe punishment of the offenders, instead of punishing of traders. The acid act should be re-evaluated from perspectives of social and economic cost.
A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) could be a good idea.
A part time teacher at Leading University, the writer could be reached at:
shah@banglachemical.com
ACID throwing or vitriolage is a crime of violent assault against another person. Acid is a chemical compound that can burn and case damage.
Acid throwing, a common crime in South Asia and Indo China, calls for serious legal deterrent.
As these countries have different interpretations of the crime, they are trying to address it from different perspectives.
The Supreme Court of India sought the opinion of provincial governments on the possibility of banning free sale of acid in the backdrop of growing instances of acid throwing, particularly on women.
The Indian Supreme Court did it as the provinces had reservation against a total ban on sale of acid.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled out ordering a total ban on free sale of acid, but favoured a restrictive sale depending on the stand of the provincial governments.
The issue of banning free sale of acid resurfaced during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation filed in 2006 by a Delhi-based minor girl, Laxmi, whose arms, face and other body parts were disfigured in an acid attack.
The human right group pressing for a complete ban on free sale of acid since 2006, alleged that the central government of India did nothing in the wake of growing acid attacks. The stand of different provincial governments was considered as roadblocks to tackling young girls becoming victims of acid attack. They argued why the apex court, which had banned sale of eggs in religious places and the use of plastic bags, could not ban the open sale of acid.
The Indian Central Government which was not willing to make acid attack a "serious offence" or curb the sale of acid, stated that it was working on the issue.
Asked to make a law like in Bangladesh to regulate and restrict the sale of acid to check its use as a weapon, it stated that the step would not be practical and it would lead to "inspector Raj".
The provincial governments were almost unanimous against the ban of free sale of acid. They considered it as not practical since acid is needed for many purposes.
They also opposed licensing the sale of acid on the grounds that it could lead to inspector Raj.
In view of the opinion of the central and provincial governments and the stand of the apex court the human right groups called for an amendment to the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code for dealing with the offence. They also called for a compensation provision in the law.
The central government of India stated that most provincial governments were "in favour of strengthening the provisions of Indian Penal Code to take care of the offences of acid throwing and attack by other corrosive materials as well as by hot water, treating them as "special offences".
The Indian National Commission for Women called for making a law, stipulating compensation for victims of acid attack. It also suggested for a new provision in the Indian Penal Code, making any attempt to throw acid, a serious offence punishable by not less than seven years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs one lakh.
In Pakistan, women's organisation and human right groups called for restrictions on the sale of acid. They also suggested for making acid traders responsible for the crime. But the government in Pakistan responded like India stations that such law could be abused like in Bangladesh.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan, which took the case of NAILA FARHAT, suo motto asked the Pakistan government to make an exclusive Acid Crime Prevention Act for dealing with acid attack cases. It also asked for an Acid Control Act, to regulate the sale and purchase of acid, as done by Bangladesh in 2002.
The Pakistani apex court also asked the government to provide free medical treatment to all acid burn victims and provide them with legal aid and rehabilitation.
Bangladesh is the only country having a law to control the acid business. In 2002 the government passed two Acts, the Acid Crime Prevention Act 2002 and Acid Control Act 2002, restricting import and sale of acid in open markets and making acid throwing a serious crime.
The law stipulates establishment of a national acid control council fund, a rehabilitation centre for victims of acid crimes, treatment of victims of acid crimes, legal aid for the victims, closure of shops to prevent the sale of acid and banning transport engaged in carrying acid, suspension of acid selling licences, capital punishment for acid throwers and a fine of up to Tk 0.1 million, trial by special tribunals, trial in the absence of the offenders, and empowering the magistrate to take witness evidence anywhere.
Moreover, the acid control rule issued in 2005 seeks to restrict trading, production, transportation and use of acid, under a lengthy procedure.
The rule requires obtaining of separate licences for the import production, storage, transportation, sale and use against payment of fees.
Import of Acid from Ministry of Home- fee Tk 1,00,000
Production of Acid from Ministry of Home- fee Tk 150,000
Acid Sales from Deputy Commissioner- fee Tk 5,000
Acid Users from Deputy Commissioner- fee Tk 25,000-7,000
Acid transportation : DC fee : Tk 100
Some acids need permission from Narcotics Department, import license from Controller of Import of Export, permission from Ministry of Commerce, no objection from Ministry of Industry and police clearance from local police station.
The carrier must obtain a special permission of the vehicle to carry acid and in case of missing and destruction, the carrier will be responsible except any reason of natural calamity or accident etc.
No license will be renewed if applied after expiry of licence. In case of cancellation of licence, no appeal to any court is allowed. Unfortunately the ministries, departments and DC office has their own responsibility and the officials are not keen to take the extra work making the licensing process very time consuming and over-burdened with bureaucratic bottleneck.
It is more interesting that as per Acid rule, the sellers are not allowed to sell until a authorized officer (Administrative Magistrate) unveil the cover in a formal visit to store at a time convenient to assigned magistrate. This is not end of the story, after some much bureaucratic process of import, store and a cover unveiling occasion, the sale is allowed only to authorized buyers and all must be documented for inspection and control of appreciate authority and law enforcers.
This control is only possible in paper not in practice. Unlike any other country, it focus on control of business not the crime. Sale of acid (sulphuric and nitric acid) is totally controlled under an unrealistic Act and rule. Jewellers and other small metallic product producers use acid widely to melt gold and other metals, and unfortunately there is no human and other mechanism to have effective monitoring to control the use and sale of the acid in each and every corner of the country. The application of these laws are limited to approval of acid trade. This makes the process only of 'Inspector Raj' and 'DC Raj' (words taken from the opinion of Indian supreme court) with out prevention of crime of Acid burning.
The restrictions on the trade made licencing process complicated and expensive for the traders. The law as well as the rule in Bangladesh is different from those in other countries. It may not be good for the economy. The law controlling the trade does not comply with basic human right. It focuses on trade and production and not on the crimes.
The civil society and the NGOs always call for action against traders in case of any acid incidence. It makes the job easier for the administration. It can take action against the acid traders in any locality. These pressure groups convinced policy makers to make laws.
But the similar groups in India and Pakistan could not yet convince their policy makers to go for similar laws. But the number of acid victims in Bangladesh has been increasing by the day, with no sign of preventing the crime.
The acid crime is similar in South Asia. The laws in Pakistan and India seek punish the criminals, rather than curb the business. Bangladesh should prevent the crime by amending its criminal procedure code for speedy trial and severe punishment of the offenders, instead of punishing of traders. The acid act should be re-evaluated from perspectives of social and economic cost.
A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) could be a good idea.
A part time teacher at Leading University, the writer could be reached at:
shah@banglachemical.com