Supreme Court Extends RPwD Act To Persons Forced To Consume Acid & Suffer Internal Injuries Without External Disfigurement
Hey future lawyers! Ever wondered how the law evolves to protect everyone? Well, the Supreme Court just made a huge move for acid attack survivors. Heres the thing: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act) initially only covered victims with visible disfigurement from thrown acid. But many suffer internal injuries or are forced to consume it, right? So basically, the SC, in the case of Shaheen Malik vs. Union of India, expanded this definition retrospectively. This is super important for CLAT! It shows the judiciarys role in interpreting statutes and curing legislative lacunae. It also touches upon the RPwD Act (a key statute for legal awareness) and the concept of retrospective application. Remember, it highlights judicial activism for social justice! Bottom line: Laws always adapting to ensure justice for all.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court today invoked its special powers to hold that persons forcibly made to consume acid, as well as those suffering internal injuries without visible external harm, fall within the ambit of 'acid attack victims' under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.
The clarification was issued since the Act defined 'acid attack victims' as only "a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance." The Court further directed that this clarification will have a retrospective effect from 2016.
This meant that persons who were forced to drink acid, or did not suffer from disfigurement, were not entitled to benefits under the Act.
To cure this lacuna, the Court urged the Union to bring a suitable amendment in the relevant Schedule. Till such amendment is effected, the Court directed :
"Pending the suitable amendment, it is directed that for all intents and purposes, especially to give effect to 2016 Act legislative intent, 'acid-attack victims' shall also include the victims to whom acid has been administered and shall further include those who have suffered internal injuries even if there is not outer disfigurement. This clarificatory explanation shall be deemed to have been included from the very inception of the Act. However, it will be appreciated if the Ministry concerned formally notifies the deemed amendment."
A bench ofCJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchipassed the order in a writ petition filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik, who had highlighted the legislative lacunae.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgiappeared for the petitioner.Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra,who is representing the petitioner in her appeal in the Delhi High Court against the acquittal of her assailants, was also present.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehtainformed that the concerned Ministry has already proposed the relevant amendment to the Schedule of the RPwD Act.
During the hearing, the Court also urged the Union to consider more stringent punishments for acid-attack offences and reversal of the burden of proof onto the accused. Underlining a need to take the harshest possible approach (permissible in law), the CJI further suggested that properties of the accused, including joint and coparcenary properties, be attached to compensate the victims.
When Rohatgi pointed out the issue of the ease of sale of acid in India, CJI Kant noted that the issue required consideration. He further remarked that even sellers should bear vicarious liability for the illegal sale of acid in appropriate cases.
Case Title : SHAHEEN MALIK Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 1112/2025