Which of the following measures was NOT recommended by the Supreme Court to curb acid attacks?

The Court suggested amending existing laws (RPwD Act, Section 326B IPC, Poisons Act) but did not propose a new separate Acid Control Act. Relevant for Prelims.

Explain how shifting the burden of proof to the accused in acid‑sale cases can enhance victim protection.

Highlight that the shift reduces evidentiary hurdles for victims, creates deterrence for sellers, aligns with victim‑centred jurisprudence, and complements existing punitive provisions. Relevant for GS2.

Assess the effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks (IPC, RPwD Act, Poisons Act) in preventing acid attacks and propose a comprehensive reform strategy.

Structure the essay with: (i) evaluation of current laws and their gaps, (ii) Supreme Court’s recommendations, (iii) proposed amendments – higher penalties, victim‑centred burden of proof, strict licensing, asset attachment, and (iv) implementation mechanisms like a monitoring task force. Relevant for GS2.

Supreme Court Pushes for Stricter Acid‑Sal...

The Supreme Court, led by CJI Surya Kant, extended RPwD Act benefits to acid‑attack survivors, urged stricter licensing under the Poisons Act, and called for harsher penalties and a shift in the burden of proof. The move highlights judicial activism on gender‑based violence and the need for legislative reforms to curb illegal acid sales.

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. UPSC 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.

<h2>Supreme Court Pushes for Stricter Acid‑Sale Controls and Enhanced Penalties</h2> 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 <span class="key-term" data-definition="The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — Statutory framework guaranteeing rights and benefits to persons with disabilities; now extended to acid‑attack victims (GS1: Polity)">RPwD Act to such victims and directed the Union to amend the relevant schedule that currently excludes them. <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The Supreme Court ordered that the RPwD Act’s benefits apply retrospectively from its commencement date.</li> <li>The Court urged the Union to amend the Act’s schedule to bring acid‑attack victims within its benefit ambit.</li> <li>Section 326B IPC was criticised for failing to deter attacks; CJI Kant called for harsher punishments.</li> <li>The burden of proof was proposed to shift from the victim to the accused, making perpetrators vicariously liable for illegal acid sales.</li> <li>Discussion on attaching the accused’s assets, including family property, to compensate victims.</li> <li>Calls for stricter licensing under the Poisons Act and a control order for acid sellers.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> • Since the insertion of Section 326B IPC in 2013, the number of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Acid attack — Criminal act of throwing corrosive substances on a person, causing severe burns and disfigurement; a gender‑based violence issue (GS4: Ethics & Social Justice)">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. <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> 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. <h3>Way Forward</h3> 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.

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Supreme Court pushes tougher acid‑attack laws and stricter seller licensing

Key Facts

Supreme Court, led by CJI Surya Kant, directed the Union to amend the RPwD Act schedule to include acid‑attack victims, with benefits applied retrospectively from the Act’s commencement.
The Court criticised Section 326B IPC (introduced in 2013) as insufficient and urged a higher minimum imprisonment and stricter penalties for acid‑attack perpetrators.
A proposal was made to shift the burden of proof to the accused, making sellers of acid vicariously liable for illegal sales.
The bench called for stricter licensing under the Poisons Act, 1919, and a control order to ensure acid is sold only to authorised entities.
The Court suggested attachment of the accused’s movable and immovable assets, including joint family property, for victim compensation.
Shaheen Malik’s 2020‑2025 survey highlighted widespread unlicensed acid sales in Delhi and other states, violating the Poisons Act.

Background

Acid attacks, a gender‑based violence issue, have risen despite Section 326B IPC. The Supreme Court’s intervention reflects judicial activism to plug legislative gaps in victim protection (RPwD Act) and to tighten regulatory control over hazardous substances under the Poisons Act, aligning with GS‑2 themes of law‑making and federal responsibility.

UPSC Syllabus

GS2 — Functions and responsibilities of Union and States

Mains Angle

GS‑2: Discuss the need for legislative and regulatory reforms to curb acid attacks, focusing on the Supreme Court’s recommendations on victim compensation, burden of proof, and stricter licensing of acids.

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Key Facts

Background

UPSC Syllabus

Mains Angle

Supreme Court Pushes for Stricter Acid‑Sale Controls and Enhanced Penalties – CJI Surya Kant Leads Initiative

Overview

Key Facts

Background & Context

UPSC Syllabus Connections

Mains Answer Angle

Full Article

Analysis

Practice Questions

Prelims MCQ

Mains Short Answer

Mains Essay

Quick Reference

Key Insight

Key Facts

Background

UPSC Syllabus

Mains Angle