Supreme Court Extends RPwD Act To Persons Forced To Consume Acid & Suffer Internal Injuries Without External Disfigurement

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court today invoked its special powers to hold that persons forcibly made to consume acid, as well as those suffering internal injuries without visible external harm, fall within the ambit of 'acid attack victims' under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

The clarification was issued since the Act defined 'acid attack victims' as only "a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance." The Court further directed that this clarification will have a retrospective effect from 2016.

This meant that persons who were forced to drink acid, or did not suffer from disfigurement, were not entitled to benefits under the Act.

To cure this lacuna, the Court urged the Union to bring a suitable amendment in the relevant Schedule. Till such amendment is effected, the Court directed :

"Pending the suitable amendment, it is directed that for all intents and purposes, especially to give effect to 2016 Act legislative intent, 'acid-attack victims' shall also include the victims to whom acid has been administered and shall further include those who have suffered internal injuries even if there is not outer disfigurement. This clarificatory explanation shall be deemed to have been included from the very inception of the Act. However, it will be appreciated if the Ministry concerned formally notifies the deemed amendment."

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order in a writ petition filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik, who had highlighted the legislative lacunae.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who is representing the petitioner in her appeal in the Delhi High Court against the acquittal of her assailants, was also present.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed that the concerned Ministry has already proposed the relevant amendment to the Schedule of the RPwD Act.

During the hearing, the Court also urged the Union to consider more stringent punishments for acid-attack offences and reversal of the burden of proof onto the accused. Underlining a need to take the harshest possible approach (permissible in law), the CJI further suggested that properties of the accused, including share in joint and coparcenary properties, be attached to compensate the victims.

When Rohatgi pointed out the issue of the ease of sale of acid in India, CJI Kant noted that the issue required consideration. He further remarked that even sellers should bear vicarious liability for the illegal sale of acid in appropriate cases. 

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