<div>As Chief Secretaries of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Mizoram personally appeared and complied with the directions to submit plans for rehabilitating acid attack victims, Supreme Court on Wednesday discharged them from contempt proceedings. <br /><br />A bench of Justices M Y Eqbal and C Nagappan recorded the statements of the counsel representing the four states and fixed November third week for further consideration of the matter. <br /><br />On September 9, the court asked why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against top officials of Karnataka, Kerala, Mizoram and Madhya Pradesh for failing to follow court directions to formulate a treatment as well as a rehabilitation regime for acid attack victims in their states. <br /><br />The court however dispensed the officers with the notice as the council representing the four states submitted that they had filed their responses to the PIL by Bihar-based NGO Parivartan Kendra. <br /><br />Taking a serious view of the state council’s failure to comply with the court’s August 18 directions, the court earlier rapped the four states for not handling the issue with seriousness. <br /><br />“It is therefore evident that the states of Karnataka, Kerala, MP and Mizoram have not taken the issues involved in the matter seriously and there appears to be wilful and deliberate non-compliance of the order,” the bench had said.<br /><br />The bench had rejected their council’s request for more time. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioner, said the four states failed to submit their treatment plans despite court orders. Giving the states a last chance to respond, the court said it would summon the Chief Secretaries if they did not comply with the directions. The court asked to submit treatment plans for acid victims. <br /><br />Court’s orders<br />The court earlier directed all the states to ensure free treatment to acid attack survivors, noting that despite Section 357c of the Criminal Procedure Code (Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013) enjoining free treatment to the victims, it did not specify modalities.<br /><br /></div>
<div>As Chief Secretaries of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Mizoram personally appeared and complied with the directions to submit plans for rehabilitating acid attack victims, Supreme Court on Wednesday discharged them from contempt proceedings. <br /><br />A bench of Justices M Y Eqbal and C Nagappan recorded the statements of the counsel representing the four states and fixed November third week for further consideration of the matter. <br /><br />On September 9, the court asked why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against top officials of Karnataka, Kerala, Mizoram and Madhya Pradesh for failing to follow court directions to formulate a treatment as well as a rehabilitation regime for acid attack victims in their states. <br /><br />The court however dispensed the officers with the notice as the council representing the four states submitted that they had filed their responses to the PIL by Bihar-based NGO Parivartan Kendra. <br /><br />Taking a serious view of the state council’s failure to comply with the court’s August 18 directions, the court earlier rapped the four states for not handling the issue with seriousness. <br /><br />“It is therefore evident that the states of Karnataka, Kerala, MP and Mizoram have not taken the issues involved in the matter seriously and there appears to be wilful and deliberate non-compliance of the order,” the bench had said.<br /><br />The bench had rejected their council’s request for more time. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing the petitioner, said the four states failed to submit their treatment plans despite court orders. Giving the states a last chance to respond, the court said it would summon the Chief Secretaries if they did not comply with the directions. The court asked to submit treatment plans for acid victims. <br /><br />Court’s orders<br />The court earlier directed all the states to ensure free treatment to acid attack survivors, noting that despite Section 357c of the Criminal Procedure Code (Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013) enjoining free treatment to the victims, it did not specify modalities.<br /><br /></div>
