Introduction:
In a landmark and socially transformative ruling, the Supreme Court of India, in Shaheen Malik v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025), addressed a critical gap in the legal recognition of acid attack victims under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The case was brought by Shaheen Malik, an acid attack survivor, who highlighted a glaring legislative lacuna: the statutory definition of “acid attack victims” under the Act was narrowly confined to individuals who suffered visible disfigurement due to external acid attacks. This limited definition effectively excluded victims who had been forcibly made to ingest acid or those who sustained internal injuries without visible external scars, thereby denying them access to statutory benefits and protections.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The petitioner, through Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, argued that the existing legal framework failed to capture the full spectrum of harm caused by acid violence. The case arose in a broader context of increasing judicial sensitivity towards victims of acid attacks, who often face lifelong physical, psychological, and social consequences.
The legal issue before the Court was not merely interpretative but also deeply constitutional. It concerned the extent to which the State must ensure equal protection and dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the exclusion of certain categories of acid attack survivors from the benefits of the RPwD Act amounted to arbitrary classification and violated the fundamental principle of substantive equality. The Court was thus called upon to reconcile the legislative intent of the RPwD Act with its practical application, particularly in cases where the harm was severe but not visibly apparent.
The Union of India, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, acknowledged the concern and informed the Court that steps were already being taken to propose an amendment to the relevant Schedule of the Act. However, the urgency of the issue required immediate judicial intervention to prevent continued injustice to victims who fell outside the statutory definition.
This case, therefore, became a pivotal moment in disability jurisprudence in India, as it compelled the Court to interpret the law in a manner that aligns with its humanitarian objectives and constitutional mandates. The ruling not only clarified the scope of the term “acid attack victims” but also introduced a retrospective application, thereby extending relief to victims since the inception of the Act in 2016.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner, Shaheen Malik, advanced a compelling case rooted in both statutory interpretation and constitutional morality. Represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, the petitioner argued that the definition of “acid attack victims” under the RPwD Act was unduly restrictive and failed to account for the diverse forms in which acid violence manifests. It was contended that the legislative focus on “disfigurement” as a qualifying criterion created an artificial distinction between victims who suffered visible injuries and those who endured equally devastating internal harm.
The petitioner emphasized that acid attacks are not limited to the act of throwing acid on a person’s body but may also involve forced ingestion, leading to severe internal damage, including damage to the digestive tract, respiratory system, and vital organs. Such injuries, though not externally visible, can be life-threatening and result in permanent disability. Denying these victims the benefits of the RPwD Act, including reservation in employment, educational opportunities, and rehabilitation support, was argued to be a violation of their fundamental rights.
Further, the petitioner highlighted that the purpose of the RPwD Act is to provide a comprehensive framework for the empowerment and inclusion of persons with disabilities. The narrow interpretation of “acid attack victims” undermined this objective and resulted in exclusionary practices. It was argued that the Court must adopt a purposive interpretation of the statute, one that advances its remedial intent rather than defeats it.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who was also present during the proceedings, supported the petitioner’s submissions and pointed out the broader systemic issues surrounding acid attacks in India. He drew attention to the ease of availability of acid and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. He also emphasized the need for stricter penal provisions and a reversal of the burden of proof in acid attack cases, given the difficulty victims face in securing convictions.
On the other hand, the Union of India, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, adopted a more conciliatory stance. While not opposing the petitioner’s concerns, the Union submitted that the definition under the RPwD Act was a result of legislative deliberation and that any expansion of its scope would ideally require a formal amendment. The Solicitor General informed the Court that the concerned Ministry had already initiated the process of proposing such an amendment to the Schedule of the Act.
However, the Union also cautioned against judicial overreach, suggesting that the Court should exercise restraint and allow the legislature to address the issue through appropriate channels. It was argued that while the Court may issue directions to ensure justice in individual cases, a blanket redefinition of statutory terms could have far-reaching implications and should be undertaken with due consideration.
Despite this, the Union did not dispute the need for greater protection and inclusion of acid attack victims and expressed willingness to cooperate with the Court’s directions. The submissions reflected an acknowledgment of the problem, albeit with an emphasis on procedural propriety.
Court’s Judgment:
In a decisive and progressive judgment, the Supreme Court of India chose to bridge the legislative gap through a purposive and expansive interpretation of the RPwD Act. Delivering the judgment, Chief Justice Surya Kant, speaking for the bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, held that the existing definition of “acid attack victims” was indeed inadequate and failed to capture the full range of harm caused by acid violence.
The Court observed that the legislative intent behind the RPwD Act was to provide comprehensive protection and support to persons with disabilities, and any interpretation that excludes deserving individuals would be contrary to this objective. It emphasized that the law must evolve to address emerging realities and that rigid adherence to outdated definitions cannot be justified when it results in injustice.
In a significant clarification, the Court held that the term “acid attack victims” shall include not only those who suffer external disfigurement due to acid being thrown on them but also individuals who are forcibly made to consume acid and those who sustain internal injuries without visible external harm. The Court directed that this interpretation shall be deemed to have been part of the Act since its inception in 2016, thereby granting retrospective effect to the clarification.
The judgment reflects a strong commitment to the principle of substantive equality. The Court reasoned that the nature of injury, rather than its visibility, should be the determining factor in assessing eligibility under the Act. By extending the definition, the Court ensured that victims who were previously excluded would now be entitled to the same benefits and protections as other acid attack survivors.
At the same time, the Court acknowledged the role of the legislature and urged the Union Government to formally amend the Schedule of the RPwD Act to incorporate this expanded definition. It expressed hope that the Ministry concerned would act promptly to notify the amendment, thereby providing statutory backing to the judicial clarification.
Beyond the immediate issue, the Court also made important observations on the broader legal framework governing acid attacks. It called upon the Union to consider introducing more stringent punishments for such offences and suggested the possibility of reversing the burden of proof in appropriate cases. This suggestion reflects a recognition of the unique challenges faced by victims in proving their cases and securing justice.
The Court further proposed that the properties of the accused, including their share in joint and coparcenary property, could be attached to provide compensation to victims. This innovative approach seeks to ensure that victims receive timely and adequate financial support, which is often lacking under the current system.
Addressing the issue of acid availability, the Court noted that the ease of access to corrosive substances remains a major concern. It suggested that sellers of acid should also bear vicarious liability in cases where the sale is illegal or negligent. This observation signals a shift towards a more comprehensive accountability framework, where not only perpetrators but also facilitators of the crime are held responsible.
The judgment thus represents a holistic approach to addressing acid violence, combining statutory interpretation with policy recommendations. It underscores the Court’s role as a guardian of fundamental rights and its willingness to step in when legislative gaps result in injustice.