The Supreme Court on Thursday took a firm stance on the issue of acid attacks in India, emphasizing that perpetrators of such crimes constitute a “threat to society” and must face stringent legal consequences. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted the severe and often irreversible harm caused by acid attacks, including cases where victims are forced to ingest acid, leading to lifelong physical and psychological trauma.

“In the penal code, such ruthless and brutal cases should have stringent conditions more than those in special laws such as UAPA, etc. These people are a threat to society, to the people. The law and the criminal justice system must deal with them with an iron hand to act as a preventive measure,” the bench observed. The court underscored that the existing legal framework, which usually classifies acid attacks under grievous hurt, may not adequately reflect the severity of the crime.

The bench suggested that perpetrators of acid attacks should be tried under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with attempt to murder, carrying a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. The court reasoned that even in cases where the victim survives, acid attacks inevitably cause “irreversible damage,” warranting a more severe legal classification.

This discussion arose during the hearing of a petition filed by Shaheen Malik, a victim of an acid attack who brought attention to a critical gap in the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD), 2016. Malik’s case highlighted that while the RPwD Act recognises acid attack victims as a category of beneficiaries, it does not extend benefits to individuals who are forced to ingest acid, as their disfigurement cannot be assessed in the conventional sense.

The Supreme Court last week issued a notice to the Centre to examine potential amendments to the RPwD Act to include victims like Malik. Additionally, the court sought information from all high courts regarding the pendency of acid attack trials nationwide, noting that Malik’s own trial had been pending since 2009 in a Delhi court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was asked to ensure that the trial is expedited and completed by December 31, 2025.

During the proceedings, Malik, represented by advocate Sija Nair, pointed out that perpetrators in many cases are close family members, such as husbands or in-laws, who commit acid attacks to settle matrimonial disputes or other conflicts. This familial context, she argued, adds a layer of complexity and urgency to addressing the victims’ needs and ensuring that justice is served.

The Centre, represented by Mehta, acknowledged the “horrendous” nature of such acts. Officials had raised concerns that including victims of forced ingestion under the RPwD Act could potentially be misused if strict standards were not set to determine eligibility for benefits. The bench, however, emphasized the need for a policy that ensures long-term support for victims, particularly those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who require ongoing medical treatment.

Currently, Section 124(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2024 criminalizes the act of administering acid to a person, prescribing a minimum sentence of ten years, which can extend to life imprisonment. While the penal provisions are severe, the RPwD Act’s definitions limit the scope of victim recognition, creating a disparity that leaves certain survivors without legal or financial support.

“The comparison of the definitions of ‘acid attack victims’ under the BNS, 2024, and the RPwD Act, 2016, highlights a critical disparity. Though the act of forcefully throwing or administering acid is punishable under the BNS, the victims who have been administered acid forcefully are not included in the definition of acid attack victims under the RPwD Act,” the petition argued.

The bench also addressed the financial hardships faced by acid attack survivors, noting that victims often require lifelong treatment that is prohibitively expensive. Under the National Legal Services Authority scheme, a cap of ₹3 lakh exists for compensation, which is insufficient for ongoing medical needs. “They require perpetual medical treatment, which is long term and cannot generally be available to victims from poor financial backgrounds,” the court observed.

By recommending that acid attack perpetrators be tried for attempt to murder, the Supreme Court signaled a shift towards treating these acts as one of the most severe forms of violent crime, reflecting both the physical and psychological damage inflicted on victims. The bench emphasized the need for preventive measures and for the legal system to act with an “iron hand,” ensuring that the severity of the crime is matched by the severity of the punishment.

The court has now issued notices to all states and union territories, directing them to consider policies for victims who are forcibly administered acid. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing six weeks later, allowing time for the Centre to propose a comprehensive framework that would provide both legal and financial support to these vulnerable victims.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s observations reinforce the urgency of addressing acid attacks as a critical social and legal issue. By advocating for attempt-to-murder charges, expanding the definition of victims under the RPwD Act, and highlighting the need for financial support, the court is aiming to strengthen both deterrence and victim protection mechanisms in India. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s recognition that acid attacks are not just acts of grievous hurt but crimes that threaten societal safety and require uncompromising legal recourse.