Supreme Court Pushes for Stricter Acid‑Sale Controls and Enhanced Penalties
The bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the petition of acid‑attack survivor Shaheen Malik, seeking broader protection for victims who either suffered forced acid burns or bear no visible injuries. The Court extended benefits under the RPwD Act to such victims and directed the Union to amend the relevant schedule that currently excludes them.
Key Developments
- The Supreme Court ordered that the RPwD Act’s benefits apply retrospectively from its commencement date.
- The Court urged the Union to amend the Act’s schedule to bring acid‑attack victims within its benefit ambit.
- Section 326B IPC was criticised for failing to deter attacks; CJI Kant called for harsher punishments.
- The burden of proof was proposed to shift from the victim to the accused, making perpetrators vicariously liable for illegal acid sales.
- Discussion on attaching the accused’s assets, including family property, to compensate victims.
- Calls for stricter licensing under the Poisons Act and a control order for acid sellers.
Important Facts
• Since the insertion of Section 326B IPC in 2013, the number of acid attacks has risen alarmingly, with more brutal incidents reported.
• Shaheen Malik’s own survey (2020‑2025) indicates that acid is sold openly in Delhi and other states, often without a licence, contravening the Poisons Act.
• Senior counsel Advocate Mukul Rohatgi highlighted that assets can be attached in PMLA cases, suggesting similar action for acid‑attack perpetrators.
Exam Relevance
The case touches upon multiple GS papers: GS2 (Polity) – judicial activism, legislative reforms, and the role of the Attorney General (SG Tushar Mehta); GS4 (Ethics & Social Justice) – gender‑based violence, victim compensation, and the moral imperative of protecting vulnerable sections; and GS3 (Economy) – regulation of hazardous substances and the economic impact of licensing regimes.
Way Forward
1. Legislative Amendment: Amend the RPwD Act schedule to explicitly include acid‑attack victims and raise the minimum imprisonment under Section 326B IPC to a higher ceiling.
2. Shift of Burden: Enact a statutory provision that places the onus of proof on the accused, aligning with victim‑centred jurisprudence.
3. Strict Licensing: Strengthen the Poisons Act rules to ensure that acid can be sold only to authorised entities with robust monitoring.
4. Asset Attachment: Empower courts to attach the accused’s movable and immovable assets, including joint family property, for immediate victim compensation.
5. Implementation Monitoring: Set up a dedicated task force to audit acid sales across states, ensuring compliance with the new control order.
These steps aim to create a deterrent framework, provide timely relief to victims, and close regulatory loopholes that currently enable the illicit sale of corrosive substances.