In a significant move to address what it termed an “alarming increase” in “barbaric and brutal” acid attacks, the Supreme Court of India on Monday suggested that the Central Government consider enhancing punishments for such offences and shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. The bench also expanded the legal definition of acid attack victims to ensure that those who suffer internal injuries without external disfigurement can access essential welfare schemes.
The proceedings, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, focused on whether the current legal framework provides a sufficient deterrent against these heinous crimes. The Chief Justice observed that despite existing laws, the number of cases has risen since 2013, prompting the court to advocate for “extraordinary” punitive measures.
One of the court’s primary suggestions is to align the prosecution of acid attacks with the legal standards used in dowry death cases. Under current criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the bench suggested the law be amended so that the onus lies on the accused to prove their innocence once a prima facie case is established. Additionally, the court proposed that the assets of convicted individuals be attached to provide compensation to survivors.
The court addressed a critical gap in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It was brought to the bench’s attention that individuals forcibly made to consume acid—resulting in life-threatening internal damage but no “outer disfigurement”—were often excluded from the legal definition of “acid attack victims.”
To rectify this, the Supreme Court directed that, pending a formal amendment by the Ministry, the definition shall “be deemed to have included” these victims from the inception of the 2016 Act. This ensures immediate access to medical care and government welfare schemes for those with internal injuries.
The hearing followed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by survivor Shaheen Malik, who sought better categorization and rehabilitation for victims. The court had previously criticized “tardy trials” in these matters, describing them as a “mockery of the system.”
In line with this, the bench:
- Directed all High Courts to set strict timelines for trial courts to conclude acid attack cases expeditiously.
- Requested year-wise data from States and Union Territories regarding the status of pending cases and rehabilitation measures.
- Highlighted the urgent need for stricter control over the sale of acid in the open market.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the nodal ministry is already in the process of proposing amendments to the 2016 Act’s schedule. The matter is scheduled for further hearing in two weeks.
