Why in news?

The Supreme Court of India has expanded the definition of acid attack victims under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to include survivors who were forced to consume acid and suffered internal injuries even without visible scars.

The apex court ruled that this clarification would apply retrospectively from the date the law came into force. It also observed that existing punishments have not effectively deterred acid attacks, suggesting stronger measures such as shifting the burden of proof to the accused and making acid sellers co-accused.

The ruling came in response to a petition filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik highlighting gaps in legal protection and state support.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Gap in the Law on Acid Attack Victims
• Why Addressing the Legal Gap Was Necessary?
• Constitutional Challenge to the RPwD Act Definition
• Rising Acid Attack Cases and Trial Backlog

Gap in the Law on Acid Attack Victims

• Narrow Definition Under the RPwD Act - The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 recognises acid attack survivors as persons with disabilities. However, its definition focused mainly on victims who suffered visible disfigurement from acid attacks.
• Exclusion of Internal Injury Survivors - Under the law, survivors forced to ingest acid were excluded because the term “disfigured” was interpreted as referring only to external bodily injuries. This left many victims without access to legal recognition and state support.
• Severe Impact of Acid Ingestion - Acid ingestion causes serious internal injuries, burning the mouth, throat, food pipe, and stomach. Such injuries are often permanent and can lead to lifelong medical complications affecting eating, swallowing, and digestion.

Why Addressing the Legal Gap Was Necessary?

• Exclusion from the RPwD Act had serious consequences for survivors forced to ingest acid, as a disability certificate is essential for accessing financial aid, rehabilitation schemes, medical support, and other state benefits.
• The petition argued that the law unfairly excluded a group of victims who suffered equally severe harm, differing only in the method of attack—acid being administered instead of thrown.
• It described this as a case of “under-classification,” where similarly affected victims were denied equal legal protection and support.

Constitutional Challenge to the RPwD Act Definition

• Challenge Under Article 14 - The RPwD Act created an arbitrary distinction between victims of acid attacks based on the method of assault — throwing acid Vs. administering it — which violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Single Class of Acid Violence Victims - All victims of acid violence form a single class because the injuries, suffering, and disabilities caused are substantially similar, regardless of how the acid was inflicted.
• Conflict Between Criminal and Welfare Laws - The petition highlighted that Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024 treats throwing and administering acid as the same offence with identical punishment. Therefore, excluding ingestion victims from welfare protections under the RPwD Act was termed legally inconsistent and arbitrary.
• Article 21 and Right to Dignity - The exclusion also raised concerns under Article 21, as survivors without disability certificates were denied access to compensation, rehabilitation, and medical support - essential for living a dignified life.
• Problem with Existing Disability Assessment - The disability assessment guidelines largely focus on visible disfigurement and mobility issues, leaving severe internal injuries caused by acid ingestion inadequately recognised.

Rising Acid Attack Cases and Trial Backlog

• The Supreme Court of India has expressed serious concern over delays in acid attack trials, calling prolonged proceedings a “mockery of the system.”
• Since December 2025, the Court has been monitoring pendency of such cases across the country.
• The Court observed an “alarming increase” in acid attack incidents since 2013 and questioned whether existing punishments are sufficiently harsh to deter such crimes.
• States with Highest Backlog
  • Compliance reports submitted before the Court revealed substantial pendency in several states:
    • Uttar Pradesh: 198 pending cases
    • West Bengal: 160 cases
    • Gujarat: 114 cases
    • Bihar: 68 cases
  • Some regions reported comparatively fewer pending cases:
    • Uttarakhand: 3 cases
    • Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh: 5 cases
• Broader Judicial Focus
  • The Court’s recent expansion of the definition of acid attack victims under the RPwD Act forms part of a wider effort to strengthen legal protection, improve victim support, and address systemic delays in acid attack prosecutions.