Answer

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s expansion of “acid attack victim” under the RPwD Act, 2016 reflects how welfare laws must be interpreted purposely to ensure dignity, equality, and timely justice for all similarly placed survivors.

Body

Need for Purposive Interpretation

• Inclusive Definition: Welfare law must protect all victims suffering similar disability, not only visibly disfigured survivors.
  Eg: SC included forced acid ingestion survivors with internal injuries under RPwD Act, 2016.
• Article 14 Equality: Classification based on method of attack (throwing vs ingestion) is arbitrary and violates equal protection.
• Dignity Protection: Disability recognition is essential for living with dignity, medical care, and rehabilitation under Article 21.
  Eg: Survivors without certificates were denied compensation, rehabilitation schemes, and medical support.
• Criminal-Welfare Consistency: Welfare law must align with criminal law where both forms of acid assault are treated equally.
  Eg: Section 124 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024 gives identical punishment for both offences.
• Beneficial Interpretation: Social welfare legislation should be interpreted liberally to advance remedy and suppress injustice.

Impact of Judicial Backlog

• Delayed Trials: Long pendency delays punishment and weakens deterrence against acid violence.
  Eg: Supreme Court called delayed acid attack trials “a mockery of the system” in 2025.
• Delayed Compensation: Pending cases postpone access to compensation, disability certification, and rehabilitation for survivors.
  Eg: Victims often wait years for legal closure before receiving effective state support.
• Regional Backlogs: High concentration of pending cases in some states creates unequal access to justice.
  Eg: Uttar Pradesh had 198 pending cases, West Bengal 160, Gujarat 114.
• Psychological Burden: Prolonged litigation increases trauma and social insecurity for survivors already facing lifelong injuries.
  Eg: Internal acid injury survivors require continuous gastroenterological care and repeated legal follow-up.
• Weak Enforcement: Slow judicial process reduces fear of law and encourages repeated offences

Way Forward

• Clear Amendment: Parliament should amend RPwD Act definition explicitly to avoid future exclusion and litigation.
  Eg: Replace “throwing of acid” with “use of acid” as suggested in the petition.
• Fast-Track Courts: Dedicated speedy trial mechanisms are needed for acid attack cases across states.
  Eg: Similar fast-track court models exist for POCSO and sexual violence cases.
• Stronger Punishment: Harsher punishment and reverse burden of proof can improve deterrence.
• Seller Accountability: Regulation of acid sale must be stricter to prevent easy access to corrosive substances.
  Eg: Supreme Court suggested making illegal acid sellers co-accused in such offences.
• Disability Reform: Disability assessment guidelines must include internal injuries and long-term organ damage.
  Eg: Present certification largely focuses on visible disfigurement, excluding ingestion survivors earlier.

Conclusion

Purposive interpretation transforms welfare legislation from narrow text to real justice. Along with faster trials and stronger institutional support, it ensures acid attack survivors receive not sympathy alone, but enforceable dignity and rights.

DOWNLOAD PDF