The Supreme Court in which case directed all the States and Union Territories to consider the ‘plight of acid attack victims and take appropriate steps regarding inclusion of their names under the disability list:

Solution

The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India (2016), directed all the States and Union Territories to consider the plight of acid attack victims and take appropriate steps regarding inclusion of their names under the disability list. The judgment was passed by a bench of Justices M.Y. Eqbal and C. Nagappan on March 10, 2016. The Court directed the States and Union Territories to provide medical and rehabilitation facilities to the acid attack victims, and to ensure that they are given adequate compensation. The Court also directed the States and Union Territories to frame schemes for providing free treatment, including surgeries, to the acid attack victims, and to take steps to prevent such attacks in the future. The Devidas v. State of Maharashtra case is related to the use of offensive language against historical figures in literary works. The case involved a writer who had used vulgar and obscene language against Mahatma Gandhi in his book. The author argued that his work was a work of fiction and that he had the right to artistic freedom. However, the Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment, held that the use of vulgar and obscene language against historical figures, especially those who are universally respected, cannot be justified in the name of artistic freedom. The Court held that such works may be considered offensive and may hurt the sentiments of a large section of the society. The judgment is popularly known as the "Gandhi Judgement" and has significant implications for the use of offensive language against historical figures in literary works. PUCL v. Union of India is a landmark case related to the right to privacy in India. The case was filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and other civil rights organizations challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar card scheme, which was introduced by the government of India in 2009 to provide a unique identification number to every Indian resident. In its judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, but struck down several provisions that violated the right to privacy of citizens. The Court held that the collection of personal information under the Aadhaar scheme should be voluntary, and that citizens could not be denied services or benefits for lack of an Aadhaar card.