“Your guidelines have not achieved the object for which they were framed,” the Chief Justice told the Union, as the Supreme Court asked whether acid should be sold across the counter at all.
New Delhi: Hearing pleas on the rehabilitation of acid attack survivors and the regulation of acid sales, the Supreme Court on October 27, 2026 observed that the Centre’s guidelines on acid sales have failed to achieve their object. It directed the Union to find out why retail sale of acid was permitted in the first place and to examine, through an expert team, whether substitutes are now available [Shaheen Malik v. Union].
The Bench comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave appeared for the Union. Advocate Vrinda Grover filed an intervention application for a woman lawyer who practises before the Gauhati High Court and who, according to the application, was attacked with acid by a male colleague in 2016.
Guidelines issued, attacks still rising
The number of incidents keeps going up, the Bench said, and that showed the guidelines meant to curb illegal acid sales had not worked. The Chief Justice put it to the Union directly:
Your guidelines have not achieved the object for which they were framed.
Guidelines alone would not suffice, the Court added, and the accountability of the officers who enforce them is key. The Union could not rest content because guidelines had been issued, it remarked, and circulars written in compassionate and passionate language would not serve the purpose. Law and order is a State subject, the Court acknowledged, but the Centre must ensure that States implement its guidelines.
Why should acid stay on the open market?
Justice Bagchi asked why acid must remain available in the open market when cheap substitutes exist, and pointed to Bangladesh’s strict law on the subject. The Bench noted that industrial purchases are generally wholesale and differ from retail sales.
For the Union, ASG Dave said detailed guidelines had gone to the States, which have framed rules, but that implementation is weak. The Centre, she said, would consider a complete ban or stricter curbs, such as maintaining purchaser records and restricting sales to wholesale outlets.
Where the pleas stand
At the previous hearing, the Court had asked the Union government to state its position on a ban on over-the-counter sale of acid. The petitioners told the Court that they were not seeking to interfere with legitimate industrial use of acid, and an intervening NGO placed on record a survivor-centric rehabilitation framework.
What the Union must now do
The Centre is to identify the purposes for which retail sale of acid was originally permitted and to form an expert team to check whether substitutes now exist. Where acid is found essential, a strictly regulated mechanism can apply. The Court also sought data on whether acid attacks have increased over time.
The NGO’s rehabilitation framework has gone to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) for examination, and NALSA and the Union were asked to invite suggestions from all stakeholders, including survivors. The authorities were also asked to consider shifting an acid attack victim who is being treated at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital to a private room where her mother can stay with her. The matter will be heard again in two weeks.
Case Title: Shaheen Malik v. Union
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 27, 2026
Appearances: Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave for the Union; Advocate Vrinda Grover for the intervenor.