Supreme Court Directs Union Government To Formulate Scheme Regulating Retail Sale Of Acid; Suggests Complete Ban Or Stricter Controls

The Supreme Court has directed the Union of India to formulate a comprehensive scheme to ensure restricted retail sale of acid in the market, while directing all State Governments and Union Territories to file responses within six weeks on why a complete ban on retail sales should not be imposed.

The Court noted that the 2013 regulatory guidelines framed in the Laxmi case had become largely obsolete and were not being implemented on the ground.

Consequently, the Bench ordered all States and UTs to frame a uniform rehabilitation scheme for acid attack victims and place it on record, while asking the Central Government to consider circulating a model scheme with financial assistance.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "Since from the compliance affidavits, it is not discernible whether the state governments have formulated, whether there exists any scheme of rehabilitation scheme, from where we direct all the states, governments and union territories to formulate a scheme, to specifically formulate a scheme in this regard and place the same on record within six weeks...The Union of India may also consider the desirability of circulating a model scheme along with the provision of necessary assistance to the state governments to give effect to the above proposed scheme."

The Court added, "The other issue, the other challenge which has been highlighted in court is pertaining to the retail sale of the acid in market...We are informed that some guidelines were laid down in the year 2013, which are more or less become obsolete and are not being followed. That being so, we direct the Union of India to formulate a scheme to ensure a restricted retail sale of acid in the market...A response as to why a complete ban on the sale of acid will not be imposed or alternatively retail sale of acid will be not imposed, it is made clear that appropriate direction in this regard shall be issued by us on the next date of hearing.

Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal appeared for the Petitioners.

The PIL 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”.

The Court asked the States and authorities about the current status of compliance reports.

Chief Justice Kant asked, "Any, any particular state where compliance is still awaited? There are two types of compliance, one is by the High Courts with respect to the pending cases, whether at appellate stage or the trial stage. Yes. The second is with respect to the welfare schemes and social security schemes of...anyone of you have done any compilation or any homework with respect to that what is, what has been done so far and what is required to be done so far?"

The Court asked the parties to file a note, in a tabulated form, as regards the issues raised, what orders have been passed and the response of the States.

Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that an IA has been passed seeking ban of retail sale of acid.

He submitted, "That is something my Lords will have to consider, because for all the regulations that my Lords have laid down in the Laxmi case, it appears that the sale of acid has not stopped. Those regulations have been effectively not complied with, and they're continuing in attacks."

Chief Justice Kant said, "one of the issues that we recollect we had raised and probably we are awaiting, that how to ensure the strict, the strictest, whatever possible regulatory measures of the sale of this acid?"

To which Senior Advocate replied that while the Central Government had framed model rules under the Poisons Act, several state governments failed to appoint nodal officers or committees to enforce them.

He submitted that the survey revealed that acid remained easily accessible in the market with virtually no regulatory oversight, despite the binding directions previously issued in the Laxmi case. Counsel argued that while industrial supply must continue, the retail sale of acid ought to be banned entirely, given the availability of safer household cleaning alternatives.

The Bench said, "The victims, we can't put a burden on these victims to now tell us that how to regulate it. Some, of course, some of the NGOs, applicants are there, we can request them, because they can suggest something. But we would like to have your response, that how this havoc is being created and how it is readily so available in the market?"

The Bench observed that strict, non-discriminatory regulatory controls are imperative, emphasizing that the burden of proposing solutions should not fall on the victims. The Court suggested potential measures, including age restrictions, mandatory written declarations of purpose, and an automated tracking system to maintain a centralized record of acid distribution.

CJI Kant suggested, "there must be an automation, that the moment somebody purchase, this intimation must go to somewhere where the consolidated information can be recorded, that how much in a day it is flowing in the market, in the, how much has been sold, how many, the, how much quantity is now with the private people available?"

The Court also asked the NGOs, who have come forward to assist the court, to submit their recommendation/ suggestions, especially with respect to the nature of curriculum required to be introduced in the school and colleges level for making the awareness with respect to the post accident treatment and protocol of the first aid and awareness regarding the preventive measures and also how to deal with the post accident situation on an emergency basis.

An application for impleadment was also allowed on behalf of an NGO, Navya Centre for Justice and Social Change, following the withdrawal of an earlier application by the Laxmi Foundation.

Background

The Delhi High Court had refused to impose a complete ban on the sale of acid. The Court has further directed the GNCTD to conduct a comprehensive study and evaluate the effects of a complete prohibition on the sale of acid. The Court has instructed the GNCTD to implement necessary measures to address the shortcomings in the current regulatory system, as per the findings of the empirical study.

After that, the Petitioner moved to the Supreme Court, where the Court had issued notice in 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 Court had also sought responses from all the States and Union Territories.

The Court again 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.

The Court had also 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 had expanded the legal protections for acid attack survivors by ruling that the definition of "acid attack victims" under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD), 2016, must include those subjected to forced ingestion. It was observed that the existing statutory definition was narrowly restricted to external disfigurement caused by the "throwing" of acid, thereby inadvertently excluding victims who suffer devastating internal injuries from administered acid.

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