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 hold that persons who are forcibly made to consume acid, and those who suffer internal injuries without visible external disfigurement, fall within the ambit of “acid attack victims” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The clarification became necessary because the Act defined acid attack victims as only “a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance.”
As a result, persons who were forced to drink acid, or those who did not suffer external disfigurement, were not covered for benefits under the Act.
Clarification To Apply From 2016
To address this legislative lacuna, the Supreme Court directed that the clarification will operate retrospectively from 2016.
The Court also urged the Union Government to bring a suitable amendment to the relevant Schedule of the RPwD Act. Until such amendment is carried out, 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 Writ 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 had brought to the Court’s notice the legislative gap in the RPwD Act concerning persons who suffer injuries after being forced to consume acid, or who suffer internal injuries without external disfigurement.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioner.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who represents the petitioner in her appeal before the Delhi High Court against the acquittal of her assailants, was also present during the hearing.
Also Read: No Illegality In Central Employees As Counting Supervisors: Calcutta High Court
Union Says Amendment Has Been Proposed
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the concerned Ministry had already proposed the relevant amendment to the Schedule of the RPwD Act.
The Court nevertheless issued its clarification to ensure that such victims are covered under the Act until the formal amendment is notified.
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 reversal of the burden of proof onto the accused in such cases.
CJI Surya Kant underlined the need to adopt the harshest possible approach permissible in law. He also suggested that properties of the accused, including their share in joint and coparcenary properties, may be attached to compensate victims.
Court Notes Concern Over Sale Of Acid
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi also raised the issue of the ease of sale of acid in India.
CJI Surya Kant observed that the issue required consideration. He further remarked that, in appropriate cases, sellers may also bear vicarious liability for illegal sale of acid.
Case Details
Case Title:
SHAHEEN MALIK Vs UNION OF INDIA
Case Number:
W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025
Also Read: Cryptic Bail Order In Rape Case Set Aside: J&K&L High Court
