Supreme Court Directs States & UTs To Respond To PIL Seeking Recognition Of Survivors Of Forceful Acid Ingestion Under RPwD Act

The Supreme Court, today, sought a response from all the States and Union Territories to the Public Interest Litigation ('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).

Previously, the Bench 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 Bench of Justice Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "Ld. Solicitor General states that all the issues raised in the petition will be duly considered, and the appropriate policy framework will be made within six weeks. We have also taken notice of the stage of the trial currently pending before the Rohini Court. A compliance report has been filed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. We request the High Court to expedite the trials pending in all five cases, subject to any other trial involving a grave nature of offences. Meanwhile, we also issue notices to all the States and Union Territories through their Standing Counsels."

The Petitioner-in-person submitted that, "Sir hum badhi umeed leke aaye hai...jab mene un survivors ko, jink acid pilaya gaya hai, wo itne khush the ki pheli baar kisine kuch bola and itna acha response aaya."

After the Petitioner referred to a gruesome case involving a 28-year-old woman who was allegedly made to drink acid. The victim's current condition is severe, reportedly weighing only 20 kgs with a dangerously low haemoglobin level of 3, the Bench asked the Counsel for the Petitioner to make a list of cases of all such cases where these trials are pending, so that the Court can pass directions to the respective police stations.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta pointed out a provision in the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) that allows the court to direct the accused to pay compensation to the victim.

The Court also said that the current definition focuses on "disfigurement," which, as per the RPwD Act, pertains to the external surface.

SG Mehta agreed that this definition should be amended to be more inclusive.

Justice Bagchi said, "The Accused generally from the weak economy...what we need is a balance between the schemes of the NALSA Authorities as well as the State...they (Petitioner) are really trying to flag is most of the acid victims are with the scars on the body, but there can be internal organ damage, because of the ingestion whre there is no scar on the face...it will burn the vital organs of the body...irreversibly damage which might make them dependent on medicines...so if they can be covered under the RPwD Act and schems."

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 throwing of acid”.

Cause Title: XXXX v. Union of India [W.P. (C) XXXX/2025]