Frame Rules On Compensation To Victims Of Sexual Offences, Acid Attacks: SC
The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to prepare model rules regarding compensation to be paid to victims of sexual offenses and acid attacks across the country.
"We are of the opinion that it would be appropriate if NALSA sets up a committee of about four-five persons who can prepare the model rules for victim compensation for sexual offenses and acid attack... " a bench of Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta said.
Noting the offer of Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar and amicus curiae Indira Jaising to assist the committee to be set up by NALSA for preparing the model rules, the court said that the "Chairperson or nominee of Chairperson of the National Commission for Women should be associated with the committee".
The court asked NALSA to file the committee report on or before December 31.
In another matter, the apex court said it would hear on December 7 matters related to regulation of public transport, including app-based taxi services after amicus curiae Indira Jaising said that operators of these app-based companies were headquartered in foreign locations and did not submit to local jurisdiction where their taxis were operating.
She told the court that Uber's operations were stopped in London as its operators did not submit to the jurisdiction of authorities there.
Referring to the Internet-based platforms, Jaising told the court that none of them have offices in India. "They have officers overseas, like in Norway, and you can't reach them. They are not subjecting themselves to local jurisdictions."
The apex court did not accept Jaising's plea to waive the procedure of subjecting a 10-year-old minor, who gave birth to a child following sexual assault in Chandigarh, from being put to cross-examination during ongoing trial in the case.
She said the fact that the minor gave birth and forensic evidence in the case should be sufficient for the trial court to decide the matter.
However, citing the legal rights of the accused, the court refused to entertain the plea and refused to interfere with the trial going on a day-to-day basis.