What Happened
- Shaheen Malik, a 42-year-old acid attack survivor, has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking the inclusion of survivors who were forced to ingest acid under the definition of "acid attack victims" in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
- Malik was attacked with acid outside her workplace in Haryana in 2009, suffering severe injuries including loss of vision in her left eye, and has undergone 25 surgeries over the past 16 years.
- The current definition in the RPwD Act's Schedule covers only those "disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid" — excluding victims forced to ingest acid, who suffer severe internal injuries affecting breathing, swallowing, and speech.
- The Supreme Court has called on the Indian government to consider amending the RPwD Act to classify those suffering severe internal injuries from forced acid ingestion as "disabled."
- The Court has also directed all states to furnish yearly reports on acid attacks, cases disposed of, pending cases, and rehabilitation schemes offered to victims.
- In a related observation, the Supreme Court stated that acid attackers who force victims to ingest acid must be tried under the charge of attempt to murder.
Static Topic Bridges
Section 326A IPC / Section 124 BNS — Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Acid
Section 326A was inserted into the Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, following the landmark Laxmi Agarwal PIL and the nationwide outrage after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. It specifically criminalized acid attacks for the first time. After the replacement of the IPC by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (effective July 1, 2024), the equivalent provision is Section 124 of the BNS.
- Section 326A IPC (now Section 124 BNS): Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid — whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to any part of the body by throwing acid or administering acid
- Punishment: minimum 10 years imprisonment, extendable to life imprisonment, plus fine (fine amount to be paid to the victim for medical expenses)
- Section 326B IPC (now Section 124(2) BNS): Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid — punishment of 5-7 years imprisonment plus fine
- The 2013 Amendment also added Section 357C CrPC requiring all hospitals (public and private) to provide free first-aid or medical treatment to acid attack victims
- Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 was enacted on the recommendations of the Justice J.S. Verma Committee
Connection to this news: Malik's case highlights a gap in Section 326A/Section 124 — while the provision covers "throwing of acid" and even "administering acid," the disability law's definition is narrower, covering only "throwing." The Supreme Court's observation that forced acid ingestion should attract attempt to murder charges suggests judicial recognition of this gap.
Laxmi Agarwal v. Union of India (2014) — Landmark Supreme Court Judgment
Laxmi Agarwal, an acid attack survivor who was attacked at age 15 in Delhi, filed a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking stricter regulation of acid sale and better rehabilitation for victims. The resulting judgment (reported as (2014) 4 SCC 427, with a further order in 2015) laid down comprehensive guidelines that became the foundation for India's acid attack victim protection framework.
- Supreme Court mandated a minimum compensation of Rs 3 lakh to be paid by concerned state governments/UTs to acid attack victims (to be paid within 30 days of the incident)
- Directed free medical treatment for victims at both government and private hospitals
- Ordered strict regulation of acid sale: sale linked to buyer's identity proof, record maintenance by seller, no sale to minors
- Directed states to report all acid attack cases to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)
- The case influenced the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, which introduced Sections 326A and 326B in the IPC
Connection to this news: Shaheen Malik's PIL builds on the precedent set by the Laxmi Agarwal case, seeking to extend protections to a sub-category of acid attack survivors — those forced to ingest acid — who currently fall outside the legal definition despite suffering equally devastating injuries.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act)
The RPwD Act, 2016 replaced the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. It significantly expanded the definition of disability, brought Indian law in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD, which India ratified in 2007), and increased the number of recognised disabilities from 7 to 21.
- 21 categories of disability listed in the Schedule, including: blindness, low vision, leprosy cured persons, hearing impairment, locomotor disability, dwarfism, intellectual disability, mental illness, autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, chronic neurological conditions, specific learning disabilities, multiple sclerosis, speech and language disability, thalassemia, hemophilia, sickle cell disease, multiple disabilities including deaf-blindness, and acid attack victims
- Acid attack victims are defined in the Schedule as "a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance"
- Section 34: 4% reservation in government jobs for persons with benchmark disabilities (40% or more disability)
- Section 16: Inclusive education in institutions funded/recognised by government
- Acid attack victims classified under the broader category of "locomotor disability" (clause (c) of Section 2(s))
- Central Government empowered to add to the Schedule by notification (Section 56)
Connection to this news: Malik's petition targets the specific wording of the Schedule's definition — "throwing of acid" — which excludes victims of forced acid ingestion. Since Section 56 empowers the Central Government to modify the Schedule, the relief sought is technically achievable without a constitutional amendment.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Judicial Activism for Social Justice
Public Interest Litigation is a judicial innovation developed by the Indian Supreme Court in the late 1970s and early 1980s, primarily through the efforts of Justices P.N. Bhagwati and V.R. Krishna Iyer. PIL relaxes the traditional rule of locus standi — any public-spirited person can file a petition on behalf of those unable to approach the court themselves.
- First recognised in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) — the court held that any member of the public acting bona fide can approach the court for enforcement of fundamental rights of disadvantaged sections
- PIL can be filed under Article 32 (Supreme Court) or Article 226 (High Courts) of the Constitution
- Has been instrumental in acid attack cases: Laxmi Agarwal's PIL (2014) led to compensation framework and acid sale regulation
- Courts have used PIL jurisdiction under Article 21 (Right to Life) to direct executive action on welfare measures, environmental protection, and social justice
- The PIL mechanism is particularly significant for marginalised groups — acid attack survivors, persons with disabilities, bonded labourers — who may lack resources or capacity to file individual writ petitions
Connection to this news: Shaheen Malik has used the PIL mechanism to raise a systemic issue affecting all acid ingestion victims, rather than seeking individual relief, demonstrating the continued relevance of PIL as a tool for social justice and legislative reform in India.
Key Facts & Data
- Shaheen Malik: attacked in 2009 in Haryana; 25 surgeries; lost vision in left eye; campaigning for over a decade
- RPwD Act, 2016: expanded disabilities from 7 to 21 categories; replaced 1995 Act; aligned with UNCRPD (ratified by India in 2007)
- Current definition of acid attack victim in RPwD Schedule: "disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid" — excludes ingestion
- Section 326A IPC (now Section 124 BNS): minimum 10 years imprisonment, extendable to life
- Laxmi Agarwal v. UoI: minimum compensation of Rs 3 lakh; free medical treatment; acid sale regulation
- Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013: introduced Sections 326A and 326B in IPC, based on Justice J.S. Verma Committee recommendations
- Section 56 of RPwD Act: Central Government can add to or modify the Schedule of disabilities by notification