Acid Attack Victims' Rights: What the Recent Judgments Mean

 By Prateek Giri Goswami

Recently, a judgment by the Supreme Court of India and another by the Madhya Pradesh High Court have once again readdressed the plight of the victims of acid attacks and their family members, and the efficacy of schemes developed by the government to provide compensation and medical care to the victims of acid attacks. Despite strict regulations governing the circulation of acidic substances, the horrific crime of acid attacks is still pervasive and has not been eradicated completely.

In May, the Supreme Court of India, while hearing a writ petition, provided much-needed relief by expanding the definition of "acid attack victim" as defined under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. In order to avail the benefits extended to disabled persons under the Act, an individual must come under the definition of physical disability as given under the Schedule of the Act. Although the term "acid attack victim" is mentioned under the Schedule, its definition had limited scope. The definition is: "(e) 'acid attack victims' means a person disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance." The legislature had good intent in defining the imaginable victims of acid attacks, but unfortunately, human atrocities have different shades. What if the acid was forcefully administered to be ingested (swallowed)? There is no external disfigurement, but the victim has suffered injuries akin to those of a victim with disfigurement. Therefore, there was a grey area in this definition which was causing trouble to a lot of acid attack victims, primarily those whose bodies were not disfigured externally but whose injuries were internal due to forceful ingestion. Because of this uncertain and non-exclusive definition, many victims of acid attacks were being denied benefits under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. This lacuna was rectified when the Hon'ble Court directed that the expression "acid attack victims" shall be construed to include victims to whom acid has been administered. It shall further include those who have suffered internal injuries, irrespective of whether there is any external disfigurement of the body.

Similarly, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, while adjudicating a writ petition filed on behalf of a four-year-old minor child who was subjected to an acid attack, and whose mother also suffered burn injuries, considered the prayer of the petitioner that the hospital in Barwani, where she was admitted, did not have adequate medical facilities to handle acid attack burn injuries. The petitioner showed photographs of the hospital to submit that the burn ward was not properly equipped or maintained with proper hygiene, as it contained fungal infection on the walls, and there were even rats, for which cages were also kept at the site. The High Court relied upon the previous judgments of the Supreme Court of India in Laxmi v. Union of India and Others {(Crl.) No. 129/2006} reported in (2014) 4 SCC 427 and Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India and Others {(W.P. (Civil) No. 867/2013)}, wherein guidelines were formulated for the treatment and compensation of victims of acid attacks, eventually paving the way for State Governments to formulate Victim Compensation Schemes. The High Court, upon acknowledging the inadequacy of the hospital in Barwani, ordered that the victim be treated at Bombay Hospital, Indore, and that the hospital shall maintain a separate account for the treatment, which will be borne by the State Government via the Ayushman Card. This incident again reflects the plight of the acid attack victim and her family members. Despite a cogent scheme for the treatment and compensation of the victim, the ground-level discrepancies in the implementation of the schemes are evident, prompting a family that was already suffering from the tragedy to pursue a writ petition before the High Court to seek an adequate remedy.

Beginning of the Reform

The issue related to rampant acid attacks was raised in a writ petition filed before the Supreme Court in the year 2006, wherein it was submitted that tragic incidents of acid attacks continue to happen. One of the main reasons for this is the easy availability of acid over the counter in retail markets. The petitioner prayed for strict regulation and vigilance in the sale of acid and other corrosive substances, and for the provision of a State-sponsored scheme for the treatment and compensation of the victims. During the pendency of the petition, on 18.07.2013, the Supreme Court issued interim directions that the Centre and the States/Union Territories shall work towards making offences under the Poison Act, 1919 cognizable and non-bailable. Over-the-counter sale of acid was to be prohibited except upon maintaining a register of purchasers containing details of the buyer along with his/her photo ID and the reason for purchase. The seller was also required to disclose its stock quantity to the SDM. Similarly, educational institutions keeping acid on their premises were directed to disclose the details to the SDM, appoint a person to manage and supervise the acid, and keep vigilance over it. The Supreme Court also directed the States to formulate an adequate Victim Compensation Scheme by virtue of Section 357A of the CrPC, which deals with the responsibility of State Governments to compensate victims of heinous crimes.

The Supreme Court, in its final judgment dated 10.04.2015, directed that a minimum of INR 3,00,000/- shall be given to victims of acid attacks as compensation by the State Government. Full hospital treatment and medical assistance shall be extended by both government and private hospitals free of cost, which shall include medicines, food, bedding, and reconstructive surgeries. Any resistance or refusal by a private hospital to provide immediate and free medical treatment shall invite action by the State Government. Immediate first aid shall be provided to the victim, and after stabilization, the victim shall be referred to a specialized hospital. Hospitals were also directed to issue certificates of treatment for acid attack injuries so that the same can be presented before the State Government for availing compensation under the formulated schemes.

The Supreme Court, in another case (Parivartan Kendra vs. Union of India) regarding the inadequate treatment of an acid attack victim and the financial brunt being borne by the family, further extended the purview of treatment and observed that victims, after receiving medical treatment to save their lives, would also require corrective and curative surgeries for the neck, lips, eyes, nose, arms, forehead, ears, breasts, and elbows. The Court also pointed out that the consequences of an acid attack cannot be viewed only from the perspective of the cost incurred in medical treatment, but that the social, societal, and psychological aspects of the attack and its consequences must also be acknowledged while contemplating relief schemes for the victims. The Court laid emphasis on the various consequential losses and the severe adverse effects of such an attack on the victim, such as the reduced likelihood of getting a job requiring physical exertion, the stigma and pain of facing society, the inability to lead a normal life, the diminished prospects of marriage, and the aftercare expenses that the victim will have to bear for the rest of her life.

Formulation of Madhya Pradesh Crime Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015

The scheme is aimed at providing compensation to crime victims or their dependents, according to their financial status, who have suffered injury due to crime and require rehabilitation. The scheme contains a corpus of funds formed through fund allocation by the State Government, fines imposed on convicted accused by the courts, and donations received from international and national charitable institutions. The fund will be supervised by the District Level Committee, chaired by the District & Sessions Judge, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, and District Legal Services Authority. The scheme also provides a Schedule to quantify adequate compensation for the victim.

Conclusion

Ultimately, these recent judgments serve as a stark reminder that passing progressive laws is only half the battle. While the courts have commendably widened the legal safety net, ensuring that victims with internal, invisible injuries are no longer left behind, the ground reality remains a heartbreaking hurdle. A family navigating the trauma of an acid attack should never have to fight a legal battle just to secure a hygienic hospital bed free of vermin and mould. True justice cannot exist merely on paper; it requires the State to bridge the gap between policy and practice, ensuring that compassion, dignity, and high-quality medical care are immediately accessible on the ground rather than conditions won only through a courtroom.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No. 22348 of 2026, 24.06.26
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 1112/2025, Shaheen Malik vs. Union of India, Order dated 04.05.26 (Supreme Court of India)
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 129 OF 2006, Laxmi vs. Union of India, 10.04.15 (Supreme Court of India)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 867 OF 2013, Parivartan Kendra vs. Union of India, 07.12.15 (Supreme Court of India)

(Prateek Giri Goswami is a dedicated Advocate with experience in active litigation and legal advisory. He possesses a specialised track record in navigating complex Consumer Protection cases, RTI matters, and environmental litigation before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). In addition to his litigation prowess, he is highly proficient in Contract Drafting, ensuring robust legal frameworks for diverse agreements. Prateek also brings a balanced approach to sensitive Family Law disputes, combining strategic courtroom advocacy with a commitment to achieving effective resolutions.)