The Supreme Court today took serious note of delays in the disbursement of compensation to acid attack victims across States and Union Territories, directing governments to release pending funds to Legal Services Authorities and calling for clearer, consolidated data on applications that remain unpaid.
The directions were issued while hearing a batch of matters concerning victim compensation, where the Court was informed that despite orders being passed by District and State Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs/SLSAs), payments were frequently stalled due to non-release of funds by State governments.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) placed a detailed status note on record pursuant to the Court’s earlier order dated 3 December 2025. The Court took note of the case-by-case status of 16 identified acid attack cases, detailing the amount awarded, date of disbursement, pendency status, and reasons for delay where payments had not been made.
In addition to these identified cases, NALSA informed the Court that it had undertaken a broader exercise covering all States and Union Territories from January 2023 to December 2025, compiling data on the number of applications received, accepted, rejected, pending, and the total amount disbursed. The data also captured reasons for delay, including non-availability of funds with State governments, even after approval by Legal Services Authorities.
The Court was told that in several cases, compensation could not be released despite approval because the State governments had not transferred funds to the SLSAs or DLSAs. In some instances, awards as low as ₹3 lakh remained unpaid due to lack of budgetary allocation, even after formal sanction.
Taking note of these submissions, the Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi has directed States and Union Territories to release funds to the State Legal Services Authorities for all approved compensation claims, observing that orders allowing compensation serve little purpose if funds are not made available. The Court further directed the Secretaries of the Social Welfare Departments of States and Union Territories to file affidavits disclosing amounts already disbursed and amounts pending for the current financial year.
The Court also expressed concern over submissions that, at the ground level, applications of acid attack victims were sometimes not even being accepted, with victims allegedly being asked to obtain court orders before their claims were processed. The Bench indicated that applications must at least be received and either accepted or rejected through reasoned orders, rather than being informally turned away.
Counsel appearing in the matter clarified that the intention was not to convert the proceedings into recovery actions, but to enable the Court to issue systemic directions based on reliable data, ensuring timely compensation and uniform implementation of victim compensation schemes.
The Court permitted NALSA to file a further consolidated chart, specifically identifying pending cases and States responsible for delays, and indicated that final directions would be considered after the updated data is placed on record. The matter is expected to be listed again after compliance reports are filed.
Appearances
Petitioner- Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Tripathi, AOR Ms. Chhavi Jain, Adv. Mr. Anurag Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Pratima Sharma, Adv.
Respondent- Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Ms. Rajeshwari Shankar, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma-b, Adv. Ms. Adya Jha, Adv. Mr. Vijay Awana, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Rahul Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Ritika Rao, Adv. Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Adv. Mr. Deepak Thukral, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Saxena, Adv. Mr. Gorav Arora, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Nasa, Adv. Ms. Kanika, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Sathvi Asthana, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Paavan Avasthi, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Terdal, Adv. Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Ambuj Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Kapil Katare, Adv. Ms. Rajnandani Kumari, Adv. Ms. Minakshi Pandey, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR Mr. Shirin Khajuria, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swati Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv. Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv. Mr. Eashwar, Adv. Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Ms. Eliza Barr, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Abhinav Rana, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.k. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, AOR Mr. Sidharth Nahar, Adv. Mr. Somkeerti V Singhdeo, Adv. Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Gautam Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Ms. Rashmi Nanda Kumar, AOR