Acid Attack Victim Definition Expanded: Rights, Recognition & Legal Protection

Recently, the Supreme Court held that survivors of acid attacks, who were forced to consume acid and suffered internal injuries without any visible scarring, will be considered acid attack victims under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

Discrepancy in Treatment of Victims

• Case of Priya: Acid was thrown on her face, leading to visible disfigurement. 
  • She was recognised as an acid attack victim and received disability certificates and reservation benefits.
• Case of Supriya: She was forced to drink acid, causing severe burns to her throat, food pipe, and stomach.
  • Since acid was not “thrown” externally, authorities denied her recognition and welfare benefits.
  • The case reflected bureaucratic adherence to the literal wording of the law rather than its intended purpose.

UPSC Online Courses

Historical Legal Evolution (Pre-2013 to 2016)

• Pre-2013: There were no specific provisions for acid attacks in the IPC. 
  • They were registered under general sections for causing grievous hurt.
• 2013 Amendment: Following a long legal battle by Laxmi Agarwal, acid attacks formally became a separate offence under IPC.
• 2016 Act: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 recognised 21 types of disabilities, including acid attack victims, allowing them access to government schemes and reservations.

Legal Gap in Section 2(zc) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016

• Narrow Definition: Schedule II, Section 2(zc) defined an acid attack victim as a person “disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid.”
• Exclusion of Internal Injuries: Victims forced to ingest acid were excluded because they lacked visible external disfigurement. 
  • The law focused on external scars while ignoring equally severe internal injuries.
• Nature of Internal Harm: Acid ingestion can permanently damage the mouth, throat, oesophagus, stomach, and digestive system. 
  • Survivors often face lifelong complications in eating, swallowing, and digestion.

Constitutional Challenges Raised

• Article 14: Right to Equality
  • Under-Classification: The petition argued that the law arbitrarily differentiated between throwing acid and administering acid. Both categories suffered identical harm and therefore formed a single class of victims.
  • Lack of Rational Nexus: The distinction had no connection with the object of the law, which was to support persons disabled by acid violence.
• Article 21: Right to Life and Dignity
  • Denial of Welfare Support: Exclusion from the statutory definition denied survivors access to disability certificates, compensation, and rehabilitation.
  • Dignified Life: The petition argued that access to medical care and support is essential for a dignified life for survivors suffering severe internal injuries.
• Legal Inconsistency Highlighted
  • Conflict Between Criminal and Welfare Law: Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024 treats throwing acid and administering acid as the same offence.
  • Arbitrary Distinction: The petition argued it was legally incoherent for welfare law to distinguish between two forms of the same crime when criminal law did not.

Principle of Purposive Interpretation

• Meaning: Purposive interpretation means interpreting a statute according to the intention of lawmakers rather than only its literal wording.
• Application in this Case: Since the RPwD Act is welfare legislation, the Court was urged to interpret it liberally to include all victims of acid violence.
  • The petition requested the phrase “throwing of acid” be read broadly as “use of acid.”

Key Points of the recent Supreme Court Judgment

• Inclusion of Ingestion: Anyone forced to drink acid is now legally equal to those who have acid thrown on them.
• Retrospective Effect: The ruling applies retrospectively from 2016.
  • The government must identify and provide benefits to all such victims from the last 10 years who were previously ignored.
• Concern Over Weak Deterrence: The Supreme Court observed that existing punishments are not creating adequate deterrence against acid attacks and the need for harsher measures to effectively curb such crimes.
• Reverse Burden of Proof: The court suggested that in acid attack cases, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” should be compromised, placing the burden on the accused to prove their innocence.
• Seller Liability: To create deterrence, the court suggested that if acid is easily available in the market despite regulations, the seller should be made a co-accused.

Click to Know UPSC Coaching Centres in India

Concern Over Trial Pendency

• Rising Number of Cases: The Court noted an alarming increase in acid attack incidents since 2013.
• Backlog of Trials: Uttar Pradesh reported the highest pendency with 198 cases.
  • West Bengal followed with 160 pending cases.
  • Gujarat recorded 114 pending cases.
  • Bihar reported 68 pending cases.
  • The Court termed delayed trials a “mockery of the system.
• States with Lower Pendency:
  • Uttarakhand had 3 pending cases.
  • Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh together reported 5 pending cases.
• Direction to High Courts: In December last year, the Court directed Registrars General of all High Courts to submit details of pending acid attack trials in their jurisdictions.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store