State is duty-bound to provide free advanced medical treatment and bear all expenses for acid attack victims.

The petitioner, a victim of an acid attack allegedly committed by her husband on August 31, 2022, sustained grievous burn injuries and permanent facial disfigurement.

Following emergency treatment and surgeries at Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMC&H), she received Rs. 3,00,000 under the Assam Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012.

Claiming exhaustion of funds and the need for multiple future corrective surgeries, she filed this writ petition seeking directions for the State to bear all expenses for advanced medical treatment, travel, and lodging, alongside additional compensation.

A court-mandated Medical Board confirmed that while GMC&H can perform the required multi-stage surgeries, the exact duration and cost remain unpredictable.

1. Whether the State is legally obligated to bear the full expenses of specialized medical treatment, rehabilitation, and ancillary costs for a victim of an acid attack.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to advanced medical treatment free of cost at a government facility based on the recommendations of a Medical Board.

The State bears full responsibility for all treatment and rehabilitation expenses of acid attack victims as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 427.

Division Bench ruling of the Gauhati High Court in XXX v. IN RE :- the State of Assam & Anr. [WP(C)749/2014], which directed the State to provide immediate specialized treatment, pay expenses directly to hospitals, and cover travel and lodging for the victim and an attendant.

The Court connected the medical necessity established by the Medical Board’s report—which detailed the need for "multiple surgeries in multiple stages" to restore facial appearance and eye function—with the established legal mandates.

The Court reasoned that since the responsibility for the treatment and rehabilitation of acid attack victims is cast entirely upon the State, and since the Medical Board confirmed that such specialized treatment is available at GMC&H, the State must facilitate this process without financial burden to the petitioner.

The Court emphasized that financial constraints should not impede the victim’s right to corrective surgery and specialized care as guaranteed under the interpreted scope of State responsibility in Laxmi.

The Court directed the respondent authorities to ensure all necessary surgeries at GMC&H, bearing the entire expenditure for treatment, medicines, hospitalisation, and travel/lodging for the petitioner and one attendant, and disposed of the writ petition.