Supreme Court of India expanded definition of acid attack victims under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi included internal injuries and ingestion cases.
The Supreme Court of India significantly expanded the scope of who qualifies as an “acid attack victim” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, holding that the existing statutory definition is too restrictive.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that the term must also cover individuals who suffer internal injuries due to acid exposure or are forcibly made to ingest acid, even if they do not display visible external disfigurement.
Invoking its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court issued a binding clarification to address gaps in the law. It noted that the Schedule to the RPwD Act presently recognises only those victims who have been visibly disfigured by acid or similar corrosive substances. According to the Bench, this narrow interpretation excludes a significant category of survivors who endure serious internal harm but remain outside the statutory protection framework.
To remedy this, the Court held that the expression “acid attack victims” must be interpreted broadly to include (1) individuals to whom acid has been administered and (2) those who have sustained internal injuries without visible disfigurement. The Bench further directed that this interpretation would apply retrospectively from 2016, the year the Act came into force, thereby enabling affected individuals to claim disability benefits and legal protections under the statute.
The Court also urged the Union government to formally amend the Schedule to align the law with this interpretation. It clarified that until such legislative changes are made, the expanded meaning should be treated as an integral part of the statutory framework. The directions were issued while deciding a writ petition in which certain survivors had been denied benefits due to a restrictive reading of the law.
Providing broader context, the Court emphasised that the objective of the RPwD Act is to ensure dignity, equality, and rehabilitation for persons with disabilities. It observed that excluding victims without visible injuries defeats this purpose and creates an unjust classification among similarly affected individuals.
In addition, the Bench highlighted the need for stronger measures in addressing acid attack cases. It suggested that courts may consider stricter sentencing standards and, in appropriate situations, examine shifting aspects of the evidentiary burden. The Court also indicated that attachment of the accused’s assets including stakes in joint or coparcenary property could be explored to ensure effective compensation for victims.
The Court further pointed to regulatory lapses in the sale of acid and observed that, in certain circumstances, sellers may be held vicariously liable for unlawful or unregulated transactions involving corrosive substances. Reiterating its concern, the Bench once again called upon the Union government to take prompt steps toward amending the law to reflect the expanded and more inclusive understanding of acid attack victims.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE