The Supreme Court of India on Monday raised serious concerns over how acid attack cases are being handled under current laws. It pointed out that the punishments prescribed for such crimes are not strong enough and that many victims are still not getting proper legal recognition and support.
The court also said that survivors who suffer internal injuries, even without visible scars, should be included under disability rights law.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition focused on expanding legal protection for victims who are either forcibly given acid or suffer harm without external disfigurement. The judges noted that the existing legal framework is too narrow and leaves out many genuine survivors.
Also Read: ‘Hang the monster first’: Pune victim’s father appeals for death penalty after rape and murder of four-year-old girl, asks politicians to stay away
Court questions narrow definition under disability law
During the hearing, the court examined the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It noted that the current Schedule under the Act defines acid attack victims only as those who are “disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance.”
However, the bench pointed out a major gap. The definition does not include cases where acid is forcibly administered or where the victim suffers internal damage without visible disfigurement. According to the court, this leaves out a section of victims who still face serious physical and psychological harm.
The court asked the Central government to consider amending the Schedule to include such cases. It said, “We will appreciate it if the deemed amendment is notified. Post the matter after two weeks.”
Illegal acid sales and liability of sellers under scrutiny
The bench also raised concerns about the easy availability of acid and the role of sellers in such crimes. It said that those who illegally sell acid should not escape responsibility and must be accountable in acid attack cases.
The judges suggested that liability should extend beyond the attacker. They also discussed stronger financial consequences for offenders, including the possibility of attaching their assets.
“Why don’t the assets of the attacker also be attached, including a share in the coparcenary or Joint Hindu family property. We talk about self dignity etc… why should the accused not suffer?” the bench remarked during the hearing.