An Inclusive Interpretation of ‘Acid Attack Victims’: India & International Human Rights Law

Introduction On 4 May 2026, the Supreme Court of India, in its order in Shaheen Malik v. Union of India (‘Shaheen Malik’), interpreted the meaning of ‘acid attack victims’ under The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (‘RPwD Act’) to include persons to whom acid was forcefully administered, including those who suffer internal injuries irrespective of external disfigurement. This interpretation promotes equality, non-discrimination, and enables affirmative action for both, people on whom acid was thrown/spilled– causing external injuries and disfigurement, and those who were forced to ingest acid, causing internal disfigurement.

This interpretation and the subsequent amendment by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment uphold international human rights law applicable to people with disabilities, particularly, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006 (‘CRPD’), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 1966 (‘ICESCR’), that India has ratified. This interpretation adopts a human rights model of disability, to align criminal law, disability law, and international human rights law.

The article proceeds in five parts. Part I delineates the meaning of acid attacks and the provisions criminalising acid attacks. Part II discusses the ineffectiveness of the compensation framework, highlights the inadequacy of compensation, and emphasises the necessity for rehabilitation. Part III addresses the discriminatory and exclusionary effects of the previous wording of the meaning of ‘acid attack victims’ in the RPwD Act, before clarifying the scope, role, and significance of the amendment. Part IV grounds the relevance of this interpretation in international human rights law (CRPD and ICESCR). Part V concludes the article.

Part I: Legal Protection for Acid Attack Victims

Acid attacks, or vitriolage, involve the throwing of concentrated acid (a corrosive, mostly sulfuric acid) on a person; or forcefully administering acid to a person, leading to severe burn injuries, disfigurement, bodily and sensory impairments, and grave long-term socioeconomic and medical consequences. Victims, mostly women, are often left remediless, without rehabilitation.

Acid attacks were explicitly criminalised by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, resulting in the incorporation of Sections 326A and 326B in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Before the criminalisation of acid attacks, the provisions used to charge people accused of throwing/administering acid were those pertaining to grievous hurt (Sections 320, 322, 325, 326 IPC, etc.), carrying a maximum imprisonment of seven years. Due credit must be given to the 226th Report of the Law Commission of India on the Inclusion of Acid Attacks as Specific Offences in the Indian Penal Code and a Law for Compensation for Victims of Crime, 2009; the J.S. Verma Committee Report, 2013; and the Supreme Court’s decision in Laxmi v. Union of India for the criminalization of acid attacks, and development of a compensation framework for acid attack victims.

Without any substantial modifications in criminalisation of and liability for acid attacks, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’) repealed the IPC, and continued to criminalise causing grievous hurt by throwing acid on or administering acid to a person, with imprisonment and a fine (Section 124 (1)). The imprisonment ranges from a minimum of ten years to a maximum of life imprisonment. The fine should be ‘just and reasonable’ to meet the medical expenses of the victim. However, only covering medical expenses does not adequately compensate acid attack victims for their physical, mental, and emotional suffering, and the loss of employment and livelihood opportunities.

Part II: Additional Compensation – The Victim Compensation Scheme

The erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), and now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), both provide for a Victim Compensation Scheme (Section 357A CrPC/Section 396 BNSS), to provide compensation to acid attack victims in addition to the fine payable by the accused under Section 326A IPC/Section 124(1) BNS, respectively, as provided under Section 357B CrPC/Section 396(7) BNSS. In addition, all private and public hospitals are obligated to provide free first-aid and medical treatment to acid attack victims as provided under Section 357C CrPC/Section 397 BNSS.

The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, accordingly notified the Central Victim Compensation Fund Scheme (‘CVCF’), which provides a minimum compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs to acid attack victims. To provide immediate temporary relief to victims, additional compensation of Rs. 1 lakh was also rendered available under the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (‘PMNRF’). These compensatory amounts, if actually disbursed, certainly provide immediate relief to acid attack victims. However, the National Commission for Women, while criticising the administrative design of the scheme in 2020, highlighted that only 474 victims across 1,273 acid attack cases (37.23%) had received compensation until then. In addition to the inordinate delays in remittance, these compensatory amounts are grossly inadequate insofar as the genuine rehabilitation and reintegration of acid attack victims in mainstream society is concerned. Compensation is not equivalent to rehabilitation. Acid attack survivors are individuals with life-long impairments and require considerably more protective measures to enjoy a better quality of life. Even the Kerala High Court held in August 2026, that “This Court is cognizant of the fact that no amount of money can truly compensate the physical agony, permanent disfigurement and emotional trauma suffered by victims of an acid attack.” Affirmative action beyond monetary compensation is required to respect, protect, and fulfil their human rights. Therefore, recognition and empowerment of all acid attack survivors under rights-conferring legislation is significant.

Part III: (Selective) Recognition of ‘Acid Attack Victims’ as People with Disabilities for Enjoyment of Equality and Non-Discrimination

The RPwD Act goes a step further in this direction, providing for socioeconomic protection and rehabilitation of acid attack victims. Included in the list of specified disabilities in the Schedule, acid attack victims enjoy the protection of equality and non-discrimination (Section 3), community life (Section 5), protection from cruelty and abuse (Sections 6 and 7), and various other education, employment, and social security rights. If their disfigurement is more than 40%, they are entitled to special provisions for persons with benchmark disabilities, and reservations in higher educational institutions, and public sector employment (Sections 31-37).

While recognising acid attack victims as right-holders was significant, the RPwD Act had a shortcoming: it only protected those acid attack victims who were externally disfigured by the throwing of acid. ‘Acid attack victims’ did not include people who faced internal injuries/disfigurement due to forceful administration/ingestion of acid. Consequently, some people were excluded from this protective legislation. One example is R, a woman who was forced to ingest acid by her husband. R’s oesophagus was destroyed, and required artificial reconstruction. R developed several health problems, requiring constant medical supervision. Since R was not externally disfigured by the throwing of acid, R had no rights under the RPwD Act.

Fortunately for R and many others, Shaheen Malik’s petition led to the amendment of the RPwD Act. Malik, an acid attack survivor, approached the Supreme Court, claiming inter alia, for the recognition of victims of forceful ingestion of acid and/or internal disfigurement. As highlighted earlier, the Court responded favourably. The court’s interpretation and the relevant ministry’s expeditious amendment of the provision to include people “disfigured externally or internally, due to violent assault or self-infliction or accident, by throwing, administering, spilling of acid or similar corrosive substance,” with retrospective effect widened the ambit of ‘acid attack victims’ under the RPwD Act.

This milestone amendment marks the move away from a positivist approach to a harmonious construction that prioritises substantive equality of all acid attack survivors over formal equality. The State cannot discriminate between two groups of acid attack survivors merely because one suffers visible disfigurement, while the other suffers internal impairment. Substantive equality between the two groups reinforces the principle of non-discrimination, and identifies disability at the interaction between an impairment (caused by the forced ingestion of acid in this case), and social, cultural, and economic barriers created as a result of the impairment. This squarely conforms to the spirit of international human rights law applicable to people with disabilities.  

Part IV: An International Human Rights Law Analysis

The Court adopted an evolving interpretation of disability as enshrined in the preamble of the CRPD, and ensured the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of acid attack victims (Article 1) to guarantee equality and non-discrimination (Article 5) in the protections of the RPwD Act. An evolving interpretation of disability considers different ways in which disability arises, as opposed to pigeonholing narrow categories of disability. Consequentially, the disability created by the interaction of the impairment caused by forceful ingestion of the acid and various societal barriers is recognised and protected. Had the Court adopted a narrow view, people like R would continue to be excluded from the RPwD Act.

General Comment No. 6 (Equality and Non-discrimination) of the Committee of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also supports this understanding of disability as a social construct (Paragraph 9 and 11), and recognises an immediate obligation of states to ensure equality and non-discrimination (Paragraph 12). The holistic interpretation of ‘acid attack victims’ leaves the charity, welfare, and medical approaches behind. Victims of criminal law violations, are thus treated as human rights-bearers. The Committee under the ICESCR also recognises disability as a prohibited ground for discrimination based on ‘other status’ (Article 2; and Paragraph 5, General Comment No. 5 on Persons with Disabilities, and Paragraph 28, General Comment No. 20 on Non-discrimination). The RPwD Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities, which also now includes victims of forceful administration/ingestion of acid.

Acid attack survivors face tremendous difficulties in finding suitable employment opportunities, and are also compelled to forego their educational dreams. Regrettably, many hospitals deny medical treatment to acid attack victims, and post-recovery medical treatment is highly expensive. Ostracised by society, access to recognition as a person with disability is important for all acid attack victims, including those who were forcefully administered acid for realising various ICESCR rights like work (Article 6), education (Article 13), and attaining the highest possible standard of physical and mental health (Article 12). General Comment No. 14 on the Right to Health also requires states to safeguard the health of all people with disabilities, and seeks cooperation from public and private healthcare providers (Paragraph 26). This understanding of the right to health reflects in Indian criminal law and disability law vis-à-vis acid attack victims. India is very far away from fully incorporating the human rights standards set by the CRPD and the ICESCR, and elucidated by their treaty bodies’ General Comments. Nevertheless, recognising that the aspirations of CRPD and the ICESCR are not only subject to progressive realisation, but also require tangible incremental progress across the years, the Supreme Court’s order in Shaheen Malik, is certainly a significant breakthrough.

Part V: Conclusion

An inclusive interpretation of ‘acid attack victims’ thus solidifies India’s obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil the human rights of acid attack victims, particularly under the CRPD and the ICESCR. The judgment recognises that existing impairments suffered by acid attack survivors can fall within the statutory conception of disability. In this way, the law criminalising acid attacks (BNS), the law recognising and protecting people with disabilities (the RPWD Act), and India’s obligations under international human rights instruments (CRPD and ICESCR) are harmonised to the advantage of the disadvantaged people. India reported approximately 200 acid attack cases each in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Widening the inclusivity of the rehabilitative framework for acid attack victims was a timely intervention. While inclusivity on law books is praiseworthy, challenges in practical implementation and accessibility of benefits still prevail.

---

The author of this piece, Aditya Dalal, is an Assistant Professor of Law at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, India, and an LLM graduate (2024-25) from the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. His research and academic interests lie in international human rights law and contract law. This blog is part of RSRR's Excerpts from Experts Series.