Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

Can acid-attack survivors be given government jobs? SC to states

March 09, 2026 4 min read Social Issues Polity & Governance GS2
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The Supreme Court of India directed all States and Union Territories to show cause why directions should not be passed requiring them to formulate rehabilitation schemes for acid attack survivors through employment in government or government-controlled sectors.
  • The order came in continuance of a February 27, 2026 direction that had required states to identify acid attack cases and provide details of victims, with most states yet to comply.
  • The Court also flagged a gap in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016: it does not currently cover persons "forced to consume acid" — the Union Government was directed to consider necessary statutory amendments.
  • States unable to offer direct employment were asked to propose an alternative — payment of honorarium equivalent to subsistence allowance to acid attack survivors.

Static Topic Bridges

India introduced specific criminal provisions targeting acid attacks through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, adding Sections 326A and 326B to the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — now incorporated into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

  • Section 326A (BNS equivalent: Section 124): Causing grievous hurt by acid — minimum 10 years imprisonment extendable to life, plus fine (the fine must be paid to the victim)
  • Section 326B (BNS equivalent: Section 125): Attempting to throw acid — minimum 5 years, maximum 7 years imprisonment
  • The 2013 amendments were a direct outcome of the Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) Supreme Court judgment, which mandated minimum compensation of Rs. 3 lakh from State Governments for acid attack survivors
  • Section 357C CrPC: All hospitals (public and private) must provide free first-aid treatment to acid attack victims without delay

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court's current intervention builds on this legislative architecture — the criminal law prescribes punishment and minimum compensation, but rehabilitation (especially employment) has remained an unaddressed gap that the Court is now trying to fill through judicial directions.

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016

The RPwD Act, 2016 replaced the older Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, to align with India's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which India ratified in 2007. The Act expanded the categories of recognised disabilities from 7 to 21, and significantly increased reservation in government employment.

  • Came into force: 15 June 2017
  • Disability categories: Expanded from 7 to 21 — includes acid attack victims, speech and language disability, specific learning disability, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy, thalassemia, haemophilia, sickle cell disease
  • Government employment reservation: Increased from 3% to 4% for persons with benchmark disability
  • The Act covers government establishments and mandates equal access to education, employment, social security, and justice

Connection to this news: Acid attack survivors are already listed as a disability category under the RPwD Act — however, the Court noted the Act's coverage gap for victims "forced to consume acid" (as opposed to external attacks), directing the Union to consider amendments. The 4% reservation mandate is the legal hook for the government jobs demand before the Court.

Supreme Court's Suo Motu and PIL Jurisdiction — Judicial Activism in Welfare Policy

The Supreme Court's directions to States on acid attack rehabilitation represent an exercise of its broad Article 32 jurisdiction (enforcement of fundamental rights) combined with its writ powers. The Court has historically intervened to operationalise welfare legislation that executive agencies have failed to implement.

  • Article 21: Right to life and personal dignity — interpreted broadly to include right to livelihood and rehabilitation
  • NALSA Scheme, 2016: The National Legal Services Authority issued a scheme specifically for legal services to acid attack victims, including access to compensation under Victim Compensation Schemes under Section 357A CrPC
  • State Victim Compensation Schemes: Section 357A mandates each State to create a fund for victim compensation — yet most states have not operationalised these fully for acid attack survivors
  • The Court's show-cause direction follows the pattern of its interventions in bonded labour, forest dwellers' rights, and manual scavenging — where judicial directions substitute for legislative/executive inaction

Connection to this news: The Court's direction is notable because it goes beyond compensation into active employment rehabilitation — a much more demanding directive for state governments. The fallback of an honorarium equivalent to subsistence allowance is the Court's attempt to balance practicality with the right to livelihood.

Key Facts & Data

  • Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013: Introduced Sections 326A and 326B in IPC; now in BNS
  • Laxmi v. Union of India (2014): Landmark SC judgment mandating Rs. 3 lakh minimum compensation from state governments
  • RPwD Act, 2016: Expanded disability categories from 7 to 21; reservation in government jobs at 4% for benchmark disability
  • Acid attack victims: Explicitly listed as a disability category under RPwD Act, 2016
  • Section 357C CrPC: Mandates free first-aid for acid attack victims at all hospitals
  • NALSA Scheme, 2016: Legal services framework specifically for acid attack survivors
  • SC direction (February 27, 2026): States asked to identify victims and cases; most yet to comply
  • SC direction (March 9, 2026): Show cause on government employment schemes; honorarium alternative proposed