In an important and expansive interpretation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPwD Act”), the Supreme Court has ruled that persons who are forcibly made to ingest acid must also be treated as “acid attack victims” under the law, even if they do not suffer visible external disfigurement.
The order significantly broadens the protection available to survivors of acid violence by recognizing that acid attacks are not confined to incidents involving acid being thrown on a victim’s body. The Court also clarified that persons suffering internal injuries caused by acid ingestion are equally entitled to the protections and statutory benefits available under the RPwD Act.
Background
The matter arose in ongoing proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning the rights, rehabilitation, and protection of acid attack survivors. During the hearing, senior advocate and Amicus Curiae Mukul Rohatgi pointed out a significant gap in the statutory framework.
Under the Schedule to the RPwD Act, “acid attack victims” are recognized as persons with specified disabilities. However, the definition referred to persons disfigured due to violent assaults involving the “throwing of acid or similar corrosive substances.” This wording unintentionally excluded victims who were forced to ingest acid or suffered internal injuries without visible external disfigurement.
The Court noted that both Section 326B of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code and Section 124(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 expressly recognize not only the throwing of acid but also the administration of acid by other means as a criminal offence.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Bench observed that the present wording of the RPwD Act created an artificial distinction between categories of acid attack survivors. The Court specifically noted:
“A plain reading of the above indicates that victims to whom acid has been administered are not encompassed within the expression ‘acid attack victims’.”
The Court further acknowledged that the law’s current emphasis on “disfigurement” improperly restricted the scope of protection:
“Further, the use of the term ‘disfigured’ appears to confine the scope to external disfigurement of the body, thereby excluding cases involving internal injuries or scarring caused by the administration of acid.”
Recognizing the serious implications of such exclusion, the Court adopted a purposive and rights-oriented interpretation of the RPwD Act.
Key Directions Issued by the Court
Pending a formal amendment to the Schedule of the RPwD Act, the Supreme Court directed that:
“for all intents and purposes, and in order to give full effect to the legislative scheme underlying the 2016 Act, the expression ‘acid attack victims’ shall be construed to include victims to whom acid has been administered.”
The Court went further and clarified that the protection would also extend to survivors suffering internal injuries:
“It shall further include those who have suffered internal injuries, irrespective of whether there is any external disfigurement of the body.”
Importantly, the Bench declared that this interpretation would operate retrospectively from the inception of the RPwD Act:
“This clarificatory interpretation shall be deemed to have been incorporated at Serial No. 1A(e) of the Schedule from the inception of the 2016 Act.”
The Court also recorded the submission of the Solicitor General that the concerned Ministry had already initiated steps to formally amend the Schedule to the Act.
Significance of the Judgment
This order is a major step toward a more inclusive and realistic understanding of acid violence under Indian disability law. By recognizing survivors of forced acid ingestion and those with internal injuries, the Supreme Court has ensured that the RPwD Act is interpreted in line with its social welfare and human rights objectives.
The judgment also reinforces an important principle in disability jurisprudence: disability rights protections cannot be denied merely because an injury is not externally visible. Internal injuries, chronic pain, organ damage, and long-term medical consequences can be equally disabling and deserving of legal recognition and support.
The ruling is likely to have a substantial impact on access to disability certificates, reservations, rehabilitation schemes, healthcare benefits, compensation, and social protection measures available to acid attack survivors under the RPwD Act and allied welfare schemes.
At a broader level, the decision reflects the Supreme Court’s continuing move toward purposive interpretation of disability legislation so that statutory benefits are not defeated by narrow or technical readings of definitions. However, we still see that the definition "Acid Attack Victim" It doesn't yet cover the Thermal Burn victims due to throwing of kerosene or petrol or a similar material.