The Supreme Court held that persons forced to consume acid and those who suffer internal injuries without visible external disfigurement must also be treated as acid attack victims under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, with retrospective effect from 2016.
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Acid Attack Victim
The Supreme Court today invoked its special powers to clarify the scope of “acid attack victim” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The Court held that the term includes persons who are forcibly made to consume acid. It also includes victims who suffer internal injuries, even if they do not have visible external disfigurement.
This clarification became necessary because the Act defines an acid attack victim as “a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance.”
Because of this wording, the Act did not clearly cover persons forced to drink acid. It also excluded victims who suffered internal injuries without visible disfigurement.
Clarification To Operate From 2016
To address this legislative gap, the 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 that amendment takes place, the Court directed:
“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 Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in a writ petition filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik.
The petitioner highlighted a legislative gap in the RPwD Act. She pointed out that the Act did not cover victims who suffer injuries after acid consumption. She also raised the concern of victims who suffer internal harm 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 Already 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 Court issued the clarification to ensure immediate protection.
Therefore, until the formal amendment takes place, the Act will cover persons to whom acid has been administered. It will also cover persons who suffer internal injuries without outer disfigurement.
Court Urges Stronger Punishment For Acid Attack Offences
During the hearing, the Supreme Court urged the Union Government to consider stricter punishment for acid attack offences.
The Court also suggested that the law may shift the burden of proof onto the accused in such cases.
CJI Surya Kant stressed the need to adopt the harshest possible approach permitted by law.
He further suggested that authorities may attach the properties of the accused to compensate victims. This may include their share in joint and coparcenary properties.
Court Flags Ease Of Acid Sale In India
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi also raised concern over the easy sale of acid in India.
CJI Surya Kant observed that this issue requires consideration.
He further remarked that, in appropriate cases, even sellers may 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
