SC: Acid Attackers Deserve Harsher Penalties Than Under UAPA
Photo by Daniel Gorozpe
त्वरित संशोधन
SC says acid attackers deserve harsher punishment than under UAPA.
The Court urged the Centre to amend penal and bail laws.
The Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive policy framework to protect survivors.
The trial in Shaheen Malik’s case must be completed by December 31.
महत्वपूर्ण तिथियां
महत्वपूर्ण संख्याएं
दृश्य सामग्री
Supreme Court's Concerns on Acid Attacks vs. UAPA
Illustrates the Supreme Court's view on the severity of acid attacks compared to offenses under UAPA, emphasizing the need for harsher penalties and legal reforms.
Acid Attacks vs. UAPA
- ●Supreme Court's Observation
- ●Acid Attacks (Section 326A IPC)
- ●Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)
परीक्षा के दृष्टिकोण
Criminal law and its amendments
Gender justice and violence against women
Role of the judiciary in social reform
विस्तृत सारांश देखें
सारांश
पृष्ठभूमि
नवीनतम घटनाक्रम
बहुविकल्पीय प्रश्न (MCQ)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's recent observations on acid attacks: 1. The Court suggested that acid attackers, especially in domestic abuse cases, should face harsher penalties than those under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). 2. The Court directed the Union Government to formulate a comprehensive policy framework specifically for the rehabilitation of acid attack survivors. 3. The Court's observations are binding on all lower courts to expedite trials in acid attack cases. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: A
Statement 1 is correct as the Court suggested harsher penalties. Statement 2 is correct as the Court urged the Centre to consider a comprehensive policy framework. Statement 3 is incorrect as the Court's observations are persuasive, not binding, on lower courts.
2. In the context of laws related to acid attacks in India, which of the following statements is NOT correct?
- A.Acid attacks are specifically defined as an offence under Section 326A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- B.Section 326B of the IPC deals with voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid.
- C.The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 introduced specific provisions to address acid attacks.
- D.Compensation to victims of acid attacks is solely the responsibility of the Central Government.
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: D
Options A, B, and C are correct. Option D is incorrect because compensation is typically the responsibility of the State Government and often involves State Legal Services Authorities.
3. Consider the following statements regarding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967: 1. The UAPA was originally enacted to prevent unlawful activities directed against the sovereignty and integrity of India. 2. Amendments to the UAPA in 2019 allow the government to designate individuals as terrorists. 3. Under UAPA, bail is relatively easy to obtain, ensuring protection of individual liberties. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: A
Statement 1 is correct as it describes the original purpose of UAPA. Statement 2 is correct as the 2019 amendment allowed individual designation. Statement 3 is incorrect as UAPA makes bail very difficult to obtain.
4. Assertion (A): Acid attacks are a grave violation of human rights, causing severe physical and psychological trauma to victims. Reason (R): The Supreme Court has consistently advocated for stricter laws and expedited trials in cases of violence against women, including acid attacks. In the context of the above statements, which of the following is correct?
- A.Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
- B.Both A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A.
- C.A is true, but R is false.
- D.A is false, but R is true.
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: B
Both the assertion and reason are true. Acid attacks are a violation of human rights, and the Supreme Court has advocated for stricter laws. However, the Court's advocacy is not the direct cause of acid attacks being a violation of human rights; the violation stems from the inherent nature of the act.
Source Articles
Punishment for forcibly administering acid must be stricter than under UAPA : SC - The Hindu
Marked for life: On acid attack survivors - The Hindu
Acid attack an ‘uncivilised, heartless crime’; perpetrator does not deserve any clemency: SC - The Hindu
Acid attack victims failed by lack of a cohesive law, legal process - The Hindu
Acid attack convicts do not deserve any clemency: Supreme Court - The Hindu