Why No Rehabilitation Scheme For Acid Attack Survivors By Giving Govt Jobs? Supreme Court Asks States/UTs

The Supreme Court today(March 9) asked the States and the Union Territories to show cause why directions should not be passed to form a rehabilitation scheme for the employment of acid attack survivors in government/government-controlled sectors. It said that if the States/UTs face logistical issues, the authorities should work on a proposal to pay honorarium equivalent to a subsistence allowance to such survivors.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik. She had approached the Court stating that she was attacked in 2009, and yet the Trial has not concluded. She has also raised the issue of cases where acid is forced to be consumed. In such cases, the survivors often face severe long-term disabilities.

In her case, the matter pertained to the State of Haryana but was transferred to the Rohini Court in Delhi, given that the survivor has been seeking treatment in Delhi. Last year, the Trial Court had acquitted all persons against whom she filed a criminal appeal before the Delhi High Court.

On the last occasion, the Court had asked her to name a legal counsel whom she wanted to represent her in the Delhi High Court. Today, Malik, who was present in Court, informed a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that she preferred Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra to represent her.

Accordingly, the Court passed an order: "We appointed Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra to represent the appellant victim's case in a criminal appeal as amicus curiae as pro bono legal aid counsel before the Delhi High Court."

Luthra, who appeared later, responded that he would accordingly appear in the matter.

Details of acid attack cases from States/UTs

As for the other issues raised in this writ petition, the Court directed all States and the UTs to furnish detailed information, including year-wise data on acid attack incidents, filling of chargesheets, pendency of trials and appeals. Comprehensive particulars of each victim, including education, employment, marital status, medical treatment, and expenditure incurred by States, etc.

The data must include separately the details of victims who were forced to consume acid.

However, the Court was informed today that most States and UTs are yet to file their responses. The Court granted one more opportunity. While addressing these concerns, the Court again reiterated that the Union Government will have to carry out necessary statutory amendments to include those who are forced to consume acid under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

On this, Additional Solicitor General Archana Dave Pathak submitted that consultations have been taking place, and it will take time as the Ministry of Health will also have to be consulted. She added that for now, Section 124 of the BNS includes cases of not just throwing acid but also administering it.

The petitioner, however, submitted that such victims should be included in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. As of now, Schedule I of the RPwD Act includes the word 'throwing' of acid but not administering it. Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that both legislations need to be brought at par.

CJI Kant said that there must be "an adequate statutory regime" to cover these kinds of offence.

It ordered: "By an order dated 27 February 2026, multiple directions were issued to the States and UT to identify the cases, status of trials or appeals, and details of the victims of the acid attack. It seems most States and UTs have not complied with. In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is given to comply with paragraph 5(v) of the order dated 27."

Paragraph 5(v) of the order says: "The brief particulars of each victim of acid attack, their academic qualifications, current employment status, marital status, the medical treatment and the details of the expenditure incurred or committed to be incurred by the State on such treatment."

Details on acid attack pending cases from the High Courts

The Court had directed the Registrar General of all High Courts to submit the data regarding pending acid attack cases. It also requested the High Courts to expedite the pending cases in a time-bound manner.

It ordered: "The High Courts have given details of pending cases of acid attack victims. Most of the high courts have reported to have issued instructions to prioritise the trials and decide expeditiously. In this regard, we request High Courts to fix timelines and let the portfolio/administrative judges monitor that the circular issued is meticulously compiled with the High Courts.

The High Courts will also file affidavits regarding the timelines fixed by them for conclusion of pending trials."

On compensation and rehabilitation schemes for acid attack survivors

The Court further ordered: "States and UTs have sent the reports in respect of purported compilance of the victim compensation scheme and rehabilitation for victims of acid attack. In this regard, we request the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee to nominate a senior advocate from the legal aid panel to collate the reports and assist this Court in next date of hearing.

All the State Governments and UTs will further show cause as to why a scheme for rehabilitation through employment in government/government-controlled sectors for victims of acid attack be not directed to be formalised by them. If there are logistical issues with respect to providing preferential treatment in public employment to victims of acid attack, State governments shall come up with a proposal to pay honorarium equivalent to subsistence allowance to victims of acid attack."

Case Details: SHAHEEN MALIK Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025 Diary No. 62038 / 2025