The Supreme Court held that persons forced to consume acid, and victims who suffer internal injuries without visible external disfigurement, must be treated as acid attack victims under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, with retrospective effect from 2016.
Supreme Court Clarifies Meaning Of Acid Attack Victim
The Supreme Court today invoked its special powers to clarify the meaning of “acid attack victim” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The Court held that the term also includes persons who are forcibly made to consume acid. It further includes victims who suffer internal injuries, even if they do not have visible external disfigurement.
This clarification became necessary because the Act defined acid attack victims only as “a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance.”
As a result, the law did not clearly cover persons forced to drink acid. It also left out victims who suffered internal injuries without visible disfigurement.
Clarification To Apply From 2016
To address this legislative gap, the Supreme Court directed that the clarification will apply retrospectively from 2016.
The Court also urged the Union Government to amend the relevant Schedule of the RPwD Act.
Until the amendment takes place, the Court issued the following direction:
“Pending the suitable amendment, it is directed that for all intents and purposes, especially to give effect to 2016 Act legislative intent, ‘acid-attack victims’ shall also include the victims to whom acid has been administered and shall further include those who have suffered internal injuries even if there is not outer disfigurement. This clarificatory explanation shall be deemed to have been included from the very inception of the Act. However, it will be appreciated if the Ministry concerned formally notifies the deemed amendment.”
Order Passed In Shaheen Malik’s Petition
A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in a writ petition filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik.
The petitioner pointed out a legislative gap in the RPwD Act. She submitted that the Act did not clearly cover victims who were forced to consume acid. She also highlighted the exclusion of victims who suffered internal injuries without external disfigurement.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioner.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra was also present during the hearing. He represents the petitioner in her appeal before the Delhi High Court against the acquittal of her assailants.
Union Says Amendment Has Been Proposed
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the concerned Ministry had already proposed an amendment to the Schedule of the RPwD Act.
However, the Supreme Court issued its clarification to ensure immediate protection for such victims.
Therefore, until the formal amendment is notified, victims forced to consume acid and victims with internal injuries will remain covered under the Act.
Court Urges Stronger Measures Against Acid Attacks
During the hearing, the Supreme Court also urged the Union Government to consider stricter punishments for acid attack offences.
The Court further suggested that the law may reverse the burden of proof in such cases and place it on the accused.
CJI Surya Kant stressed the need to adopt the harshest possible approach permitted by law.
He also suggested that courts may attach the properties of accused persons to compensate victims. This may include their share in joint and coparcenary properties.
Court Notes Concern Over Sale Of Acid
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi also raised concern over the easy availability of acid in India.
CJI Surya Kant observed that the issue requires serious consideration.
In appropriate cases, he remarked, sellers may also face vicarious liability for the illegal sale of acid.
Case Details
Case Title:
Shaheen Malik v. Union of India
Case Number:
W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025
