Supreme Court Expands Definition of Acid Attack Victims Under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 4) held that survivors of acid attacks, who were forced to consume acid and suffered internal injuries without any visible scarring, will be considered acid attack victims under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said that the clarification would apply retrospectively from the day the Act came into force and also informed the government that existing punishment for acid attack had failed as a deterrent, suggested reversing the burden of proof onto the accused and said acid sellers should be made co-accused in such cases. The order came in a petition filed by Shaheen Malik , who herself was a survivor and had flagged a gap in law that was leaving out an entire category of victims without access to state support. The RPwD Act includes acid attack survivors in its list of specified disabilities. But the definition it settled on was narrow. Under Schedule 2(zc) of the Act, an “acid attack victim” is a person “disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance.” Survivors who had acid forcefully ingested fell outside it. The court noted the problem was that “the use of term “disfigured” appears to confine the scope of external disfigurement of the body, thereby excluding cases involving internal injuries or scarring caused by the administration of acid.” The injuries in such cases are equally severe. When acid is ingested, it burns the mouth, throat, oesophagus, and stomach. The damage is quite often permanent. Malik’s petition states that “the corrosive substance causes intense burns and significant harm to the internal organs, particularly the gastrointestinal system. This often results in lifelong medical complications, including the need for ongoing gastroenterological care. Victims of oral acid ingestion may experience long-term issues such as difficulty eating, swallowing, and digestion.” Why was it necessary to address this gap? The consequences of falling outside the purview of the RPwD Act are significant. A disability certificate under the Act is the gateway to financial assistance, rehabilitation schemes, medical support, etc. Without it, a survivor cannot access any of it. The petition called it a “textbook example of under-classification, where a law purports to treat a class of persons but arbitrarily excludes a sub-group that is identically situated for the purposes of the law.” The only difference between the two groups, it argued, is the method of the attack—throwing vs administering acid, rather than the nature and extent of harm. At the centre of the challenge is Article 14 of the Constitution. The petition argues that the law creates an “arbitrary and unreasonable classification” by distinguishing victims based on the method of assault, throwing acid versus administering it, rather than the consequence of the attack. This distinction has no rational nexus to the object of the law, which is to support persons living with disabilities. “The legislative focus is on the disability itself, not its cause or the mechanics of how it was inflicted,” the petition states, arguing that victims of thrown acid and ingested acid “constitute a single, indivisible class of persons disabled by acid violence.” It describes the omission as a ”textbook example of under classification, where a law purports to treat a class of persons but arbitrarily excludes a subgroup that is identically situated for the purposes of the law.” The petition also points to what it calls a legal inconsistency between criminal law and welfare law. Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024, treats throwing acid and administering acid as the same offence, carrying identical punishment. “The harm, intent, and societal danger are identical regardless of the method of acid assault,” the petition argues, making it “legally incoherent and arbitrary” for a remedial welfare statute to draw a distinction that penal law has consciously rejected. The Article 21 argument flows from the consequences of exclusion. Since victims of forceful ingestion do not fall within the statutory definition, they are unable to obtain disability certificates required to access state compensation, rehabilitation schemes, and medical support. The petition argues that this denial of statutory recognition effectively infringes their right to live with dignity. “For a person suffering from such grievous internal injuries, access to medical care and support is not a matter of charity but a fundamental component of a dignified life,” it states. The petition also states that acid ingestion injuries often cause extensive damage to internal organs. Existing disability assessment guidelines, it argues, remain focused largely on visible disfigurement and mobility impairment, leaving internal injuries outside formal recognition. To address this, the petition urged the Court to adopt a “purposive interpretation” of the statute, which is when the court interprets a statute based on its intended purpose rather than adhering to its literal meaning. Since the RPwD Act is a piece of beneficial social welfare legislation, the petition argued, courts must interpret it “liberally and purposively to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief.” It specifically asked the Court to “read up” the phrase “violent assaults by throwing of acid” to mean “violent assaults involving the use of acid”, thereby including all forms of acid assault within the law’s protection. The trial backlog Expanding the ambit of definitions under the Act runs alongside it is a problem the court has been trying to address since December last year, when it called tardy trials in acid attack cases “a mockery of the system”. The court then directed the registrars general of all high courts to furnish details of pending trials in their jurisdictions. Follow our daily newsletter so you never miss anything important. On Wednesday, we answer readers' questions. “The number of cases has increased. Barbaric and brutal acid attacks have been made,” the CJI said, adding, “Don’t you think that the punishment should have been harsher?” On Monday, the bench noted an “alarming increase” in the number of acid attack cases since 2013, itself a serious issue of consideration. The compliance affidavits that were filed in the Supreme Court mapped a clear picture of pendency across states, with a few jurisdictions accounting for a significant share. Uttar Pradesh reported the highest backlog at 198 cases, followed by West Bengal with 160 cases and Gujarat with 114. Bihar reported 68 pending cases. Among other states, Maharashtra had 58 cases, while Assam recorded 27 cases. Jharkhand had 26 cases; Odisha reported 23 cases in subordinate courts and 8 before the High Court. Delhi lower courts had 21 pending cases as of December last year. At the lower end, Uttarakhand had three pending cases, whereas Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh had five.