In News:

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has significantly broadened the protective umbrella of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. By recognizing survivors of forcible acid ingestion as "acid attack victims," the Court has shifted the legal focus from visible external disfigurement to the gravity of internal injuries, ensuring that justice is inclusive of all forms of corrosive violence.

The Supreme Court’s Expanding Interpretation

The ruling addresses a critical lacuna where the law previously recognized only those disfigured by the "throwing" of acid.

• Redefining the Victim: The Court ruled that individuals forced to ingest acid, suffering from severe internal organ damage, are entitled to the same disability benefits and legal protections as those with external scarring.
• Retrospective Effect: To prevent the denial of justice to past survivors, the Court directed that this expanded definition applies retrospectively from the enactment of the RPwD Act in 2016.
• Article 142 and "Deemed Amendment": Using its extraordinary plenary powers under Article 142, the Court passed a "deemed amendment." This serves as the law of the land until the Union Government formally updates the Schedule of the RPwD Act.
• Accountability Measures: The Court suggested attaching the assets of attackers (including shares in Joint Hindu Family properties) for compensation and proposed reversing the burden of proof onto the accused.

The RPwD Act, 2016: A Rights-Based Framework

The RPwD Act was enacted to align Indian law with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

• Expansion of Categories: The Act increased recognized disabilities from 7 to 21. Acid attack victims are classified under physical/locomotor disability.
• Key Entitlements:
  • Education: Free education for children with benchmark disabilities aged 6 to 18 years.
  • Reservations: Increased to 4% in government employment and 5% in higher education.
  • Accessibility: Mandates barrier-free access in all public buildings and transport.
  • Guardianship: Moves from "plenary guardianship" to "limited guardianship," prioritizing the agency of the person with a disability.

Legal Landscape of Acid Attacks in India

Acid attacks are recognized as premeditated assaults intended to cause permanent physical, psychological, and economic ruin.

1. Penal Provisions:

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Under Section 124, causing grievous hurt by acid (throwing or administering) is a non-bailable offense punishable by 10 years to life imprisonment.
• Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Section 397 mandates that all hospitals provide free, immediate first aid, while Section 396 outlines the Victim Compensation Scheme.

2. Institutional Support:

• NALSA (2016): Provides priority legal aid and uniform financial compensation for women survivors.
• Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund: Provides an additional ?1 lakh for survivors.

3. Landmark Judicial Interventions:

• Laxmi vs. Union of India (2014): Led to the regulation of over-the-counter acid sales and mandatory reporting by sellers.
• Justice JS Verma Committee (2013): Identified acid attacks as a gendered crime and recommended stringent punishments and national survivor funds.

Challenges in the Path to Justice

Despite a robust legal framework, survivors face systemic hurdles:

• Enforcement Gaps: Acid remains easily accessible in regions near textile and rubber industries despite regulations.
• Judicial Delays: NCRB 2023 data highlights a dismal conviction rate, with only 16 convictions out of 703 pending cases.
• Socio-Economic Barriers: Victims are often pressured into out-of-court settlements. Social stigma and the high cost of lifelong reconstructive surgeries lead to exclusion from the workforce.
• Underreporting: While the NCRB reported 207 cases in 2023, organizations like ASTI estimate the actual number is closer to 1,000 annually, suppressed by fear and stigma.

Way Forward: A Holistic Approach

To bridge the gap between law and reality, India must adopt a multi-dimensional strategy:

1. Aggressive Regulation: Mirroring the success of Bangladesh (where attacks dropped from 494 to 13 annually), India must strictly penalize unlicensed acid sales.
2. Fast-Track Justice: Establishing specialized courts and sensitizing police to prevent victim-blaming is essential to increase conviction rates.
3. Comprehensive Rehabilitation: Shifting from "one-time compensation" to lifelong support, including vocational training and psychological counseling, as recommended by the Justice Verma Committee.
4. Societal Sensitization: Public campaigns are needed to dismantle the patriarchal mindsets that view acid attacks as a tool for "revenge."

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s intervention reinforces that the spirit of the RPwD Act is to protect human dignity. However, legal expansion must be met with executive vigor and societal empathy to ensure that acid attack survivors move from a state of mere survival to one of meaningful empowerment.