The Supreme Court on Thursday indicated that acid attack survivors requiring repeated travel for medical treatment could be included under the existing “patient category” for railway fare concessions, while asking the Union Government to take instructions on whether such a policy amendment could be made.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel submitted that although legislative reforms following the Justice Verma Committee Report mandated compensation and immediate medical treatment for acid attack survivors, they did not address the long-term burden of travelling repeatedly for reconstructive surgeries, skin grafting and ophthalmic procedures.
Counsel informed the Court that survivors often require between 11 and 20 hospital visits over nearly five years, and many have to travel from remote areas to metropolitan cities where specialised treatment is available.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana found merit in the submission and suggested that acid attack survivors could be accommodated within the existing railway concession framework applicable to patients suffering from specified ailments. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed:
“
“What is submitted appeals to us. Only in the patient category. Where you have thalassemia, heart, kidney, haemophilia, TB, non-infectious leprosy… there we can include. A poor girl gets a big disfigurement because of an acid attack in a faraway village and may require train travel. If that concession can be given, only for treatment and periodic treatment.”
The petitioner further submitted that the issue was not merely one of policy but flowed from the statutory obligations cast upon the Government under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Referring to Section 41(2) of the Act, counsel argued:
“
“The appropriate Government shall develop schemes and programmes to promote the personal mobility of persons with disabilities at affordable cost and provide for incentives and concessions. This is a ‘shall’ mandate. The Act also contains the concept of reasonable accommodation, which pushes the Government further to treat them as equals—not as someone who merely needs assistance, but so that they have the same life and livelihood as everyone else.”
The petitioner also pointed out that the existing concession mechanism itself posed practical difficulties, as survivors were required to obtain certificates from the treating hospital each time, making the process onerous for those residing far from specialised medical centres. The Bench, however, indicated that it would first like the Government to examine whether the concession could be extended through a policy decision. The Chief Justice remarked:
“
“First let Madam take instructions on a policy decision that this amendment can be made, or it can be prompted by our order, to incorporate acid attack survivors… for treatment and periodic treatment.”