<h2>Overview</h2>
<p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body with the power to interpret the Constitution and issue binding judgments (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> has issued a landmark clarification that broadens the scope of "acid‑attack victims" under the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — legislation that provides rights and benefits to persons with disabilities, including provisions for victims of acid attacks (GS2: Polity)">RPwD Act</span>. The ruling makes the expanded definition retroactive to 2016, thereby covering persons forced to ingest acid and those with internal injuries despite the absence of visible disfigurement.</p>
<h2>Key Developments</h2>
<ul>
<li>The Court directed that, pending a formal amendment, the definition of "acid‑attack victim" shall also include victims who were administered acid orally and those suffering internal injuries without external scars.</li>
<li>The clarification is deemed to have been part of the Act since its inception, ensuring that affected persons can claim benefits for the period from 2016 onward.</li>
<li>The bench, comprising <strong>CJI Surya Kant</strong> and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, heard the petition filed by survivor <strong>Shaheen Malik</strong> highlighting the legislative lacuna.</li>
<li>Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra represented the petitioner; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta confirmed that the Ministry has already proposed a <span class="key-term" data-definition="Schedule amendment — a change to the schedule of a statute, which lists definitions and benefits, requiring legislative action (GS2: Polity)">Schedule amendment</span> to formalise the change.</li>
<li>The Court urged the Union to consider stricter punishments, reversal of the burden of proof onto the accused, and attachment of the accused’s property to compensate victims.</li>
<li>In response to concerns over easy acid availability, the CJI suggested that sellers could face <span class="key-term" data-definition="Vicarious liability — legal doctrine holding a party responsible for the acts of another, here applied to acid sellers (GS2: Polity)">vicarious liability</span> for illegal sales.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Important Facts</h2>
<p>The original definition in the RPwD Act limited "acid‑attack victim" to a person disfigured by the violent throwing of acid. Consequently, individuals forced to drink acid or those with only internal injuries were excluded from statutory benefits. The Supreme Court’s clarification now treats these categories as covered, ensuring access to medical, rehabilitation, and compensation schemes. The decision also calls for a legislative amendment to the Act’s Schedule, which the Ministry is expected to notify formally.</p>
<h2>UPSC Relevance</h2>
<p>Understanding this judgment is crucial for GS 2 (Polity) as it illustrates judicial activism in filling statutory gaps, the role of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Union Government — the central government of India responsible for policy implementation and legislative amendments (GS2: Polity)">Union</span> in amending statutes, and the interplay between law and social justice. The case also touches upon criminal law reforms such as <span class="key-term" data-definition="Burden of proof reversal — legal principle where the accused must prove innocence, strengthening victim protection (GS2: Polity)">burden of proof reversal</span>, which may be examined in the context of criminal procedure and victim rights.</p>
<h2>Way Forward</h2>
<p>While the Court’s interim direction provides immediate relief, a formal amendment to the RPwD Act’s Schedule is essential for long‑term certainty. The Union should expedite the amendment, tighten regulations on acid sale, and enforce stricter penalties, including property attachment, to deter perpetrators. Additionally, awareness campaigns and stricter monitoring of acid distribution channels can help prevent future incidents.</p>
Loading page, please wait…