Click the Play button to listen to article

In a matter pertaining to acid-attack survivors, the Supreme Court today impressed upon the Union of India to revisit its policy guidelines, considering that the incidents of acid attack have risen despite the guidelines. 

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana conveyed its opinion to Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, calling on the Union to examine the National Crime Bureau Records data with regard to the incidence of acid attacks over the years.

The CJI remarked, "Despite your guidelines (to restrict retail sale of acid), unfortunate incidents are taking place. Unfortunate incidents are increasing. That means there is some fault and your guidelines have not been able to achieve the object. That itself is a good ground for you to revisit the entire issue. You can't just be happy and satisfied that you have issued the guidelines and the burden is passed on to the states.

If states don't have mechanism to give effect, or if despite that, there are so many loopholes that people are misusing and have their way out, you and States will have to coordinate and resolve it. Show us a single circular you have issued to a state seeking explanation that how despite your guidelines, [so many] incidents have taken place in the state? Where's accountability of officers of enforcement agencies there? Issuing a very compassionate language in a circular, directing all these things, is not going to serve the purpose...we understand there is federal structure...but then to remind them, part of responsibility you will have to share...if incidents are rising, that means the policy has miserably failed." 

The bench also expressed that it will entertain an application filed by a woman lawyer practicing at Guwahati High Court, who was allegedly thrown acid upon by a male colleague in 2016. Advocate Vrinda Grover appeared for the applicant and submitted that she was being provided medical expenses. However, as the Court was seized of the larger issue of rehabilitation of acid attack survivors, the applicant sought to intervene. 

Grover also apprised the bench that the vision in one of the applicant's eyes has been severely impacted, yet she continues to practice as a lawyer. "We will surely entertain" replied CJI Kant. The counsel later raised the issue of the compensation amount contemplated under the victim compensation scheme, saying it does not suffice for any acid attack victim. 

With regard to the acid attack survivor who was allegedly sought to be discharged (by force) out of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, counsel for the hospital appeared and informed that the court's directions had been complied with and the survivor was undergoing surgeries.

Considering a plea on behalf of the survivor, the bench further impressed upon the hospital authorities to explore the possibility of allotting the survivor a room so her attendant-mother can also tend to her comfortably (as the treatment and recovery would be a long process).

This came after it was claimed that the survivor was being kept in a general ward when she was not undergoing surgeries. ASG Dave also informed qua this case that after the Court's directions, the accused had been arrested and were in judicial custody. The ASG assured that she will personally look into the matter and ensure that the survivor is provided proper medical treatment at all times. 

The Court further allowed an intervention application filed by NGO-National Justice and Social Change, which furnished before the court a proposed Standard Operating Procedure. The Union and NALSA were called on to examine the SOP, as well as invite suggestions from other stakeholders (including survivors). 

On the issue of retail sale of acid, ASG Dave submitted that detailed guidelines had been issued to states/UTs restricting the sale of acid, however, the problem persisted qua implementation. She also submitted that the guidelines had been revised and circulated again. 

The CJI however observed that the Union cannot wash off its hands by simply issuing guidelines, as they are not serving the purpose if cases are on the rise. The bench also questioned the need for retail sale of acid in the market, when so many substitutes for household purposes are available. The CJI gave the example of NDPS Act to suggest that there can be a controlled order for sale of acid. Justice Bagchi noted that Bangladesh has a particularly good legislation on this issue.

"First you can identify the necessities for which acid was originally allowed to be sold in the open market. Then you can have a team of experts who can identify that so and so substitutes are available (for those purposes). Then maybe you find that for one or two purposes, it is indispensable. For that you can have (restrictions)", the bench conveyed. 

ASG Dave responded that she will obtain instructions on regulated sale of acid. 

So far as the issue of acid attack survivors who suffered forcible ingestion of acid/internal injuries, the ASG informed that after inclusion of such survivors in the ambit of 'persons with disability', the disability assessment guidelines were being revisited. Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, in this regard, urged the court to fix an outer time limit for the Union to finalize the eligibility criteria for disability certificates. 

Case Title : SHAHEEN MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025 

Tags: