Public Employment Schemes For Rehabilitation Of Acid Attack Survivors: Supreme Court Seeks Response From States

The Supreme Court has issued a "show-cause" notice to all State Governments and Union Territories seeking an explanation as to why specialized schemes for rehabilitation through public employment—specifically within government or government-controlled sectors—should not be established.

The Bench clarified that if logistical constraints prevent immediate employment rollout, States must instead submit proposals to provide survivors with a monthly honorarium equivalent to a subsistence allowance.

The Court was hearing a PIL highlighting a critical legislative gap that prevents victims of forceful acid ingestion from being recognised under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "Furthermore, all State Governments and Union Territories shall show cause as to why a scheme for rehabilitation through public employment—specifically in government or government-controlled sectors—for the victims of acid attack should not be formally established by them. Should there be logistical issues regarding the formulation of such a scheme providing preferential treatment in public employment, the State Governments shall submit a proposal to pay an honorarium equivalent to a subsistence allowance to the victims. This proposal must be submitted on or before the next date, prior to the issuance of any final directions in this regard. For now, we accord one last opportunity to the State Governments and Union Territories to submit their viewpoints."

Previously, the Court had asked all states and Union territories to provide a slew of information, including the year-wise details of the number of such cases and their status in courts, besides the rehabilitation measures to support the victims. it also asked states and UTs to provide information about the number of cases in which charge sheets are filed in trial courts. They will also have to provide information about the number of cases decided or pending at the trial court levels. Seeking the details in four weeks, the bench asked them to also provide information about the number of appeals filed in appellate courts, including the High Courts, in such cases.

The Court also ordered, "Vide order dated 27th January 2026, multiple directions were issued, including to the States and Union Territories to identify and report on incidents of acid attacks, the status of pending trials or appeals, and details of the victims. It appears that most of the States have not yet complied with these directions. In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to all State Governments to comply with Para 5, specifically Para 5(v), of the order dated 27-01-2026."

"The High Courts have provided details of the pending cases concerning acid attack victims. Most High Courts are reported to have issued instructions to prioritize these trials and decide them expeditiously. In this regard, we request the High Courts to fix a specific timeline for the trial courts. We further direct that the Portfolio/Administrative Judges monitor these matters to ensure that the circulars issued by the High Courts are meticulously complied with by the trial courts", the Court added.

The Court noted that if administrative or logistical constraints prevent the immediate rollout of employment schemes, States must alternatively propose a monthly honorarium equivalent to a subsistence allowance. Noting that most states have failed to report on the status of pending cases and victim profiles, the Court granted a final window for compliance. 

The Court directed, "State-level authorities have submitted reports regarding the reported compliance work, victim compensation schemes, and rehabilitation schemes for acid attack survivors. In this regard, we request the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to nominate a Senior Advocate from the legal aid panel to collate all such reports and assist the Court on the next date of hearing. The High Courts shall also file updates regarding the timelines fixed by them for the conclusion of pending trials."

Previously, the bench sought a response from all the States and Union Territories regarding the legislative gap that prevents victims of forceful acid ingestion from being recognised under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The Court had issued notice in the PIL and directed the Registrar General of all the High Courts to furnish details of pending trials in the cases of acid attack victims in their respective jurisdiction.

The PIL, filed by AOR Anuj Kapoor, highlighted a legal disparity arising from the definition of “acid attack victims” in the Schedule to the RPwD Act. The Act commendably includes acid attack survivors as persons with disabilities, but limits the definition to individuals “disfigured due to violent assaults by the throwing of acid”.

Cause Title: Shaheen Malik v. Union of India [Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1112/2025]