The Supreme Court widened the definition of “acid attack victims” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to cover people who were forcibly made to drink acid. The ruling came on May 4, 2026. Until now, the 2016 act only recognized victims of acid-throwing, and it said nothing about forcible acid ingestion. That gap persisted even after the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, brought both acid-throwing and forced acid administration under Section 124 as forms of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, punishable with ten years to life imprisonment. The Court’s order applies retrospectively, back to when the Act came into force in 2016, which means victims of forcible ingestion can now claim the disability benefits the law provides.
Retrospective Recognition for Victims of Forcible Acid Ingestion
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that reading survivors of forced acid administration into the category of “acid attack victims” would be treated as having applied retrospectively since the Act’s inception in 2016. That recognition lets victims of forcible ingestion claim disability benefits under the 2016 Act. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, told the Court that the nodal Ministry had already sent a proposed amendment to the Act’s Schedule to the Ministry of Legislative Affairs.
Mehta although, asked the Court to let the Ministry carry out the amendment on its own timeline. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the petitioners, pushed back and asked the Court to use its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution instead. “The victims mostly, if not all, are women,” he said. “Till the Schedule of the 2016 Act is changed, the Supreme Court must pass an order under Article 142 to include not only persons on whom acid was thrown but also those who suffered the extreme agony of having to forcibly ingest acid in the category of ‘acid attack victim’. There is some monetary support given to them under the Act and they are issued an identity card.”
The Court agreed, directing that “for all intents and purposes, especially to give effect to the legislative scheme of 2016 Act, it is directed that ‘acid attack victims’ shall also include those administered acid, and further, include those who have suffered internal injury even if there is no visible disfigurement. This clarificatory explanation shall be deemed to be included in the Schedule from the very inception of the 2016 Act. It will be appreciated if the Ministry concerned notified the deemed amendment.”
In earlier hearings on the matter, the Court had gone as far as urging the Centre to amend penal and bail laws to punish perpetrators of what it called the “most ruthless, most heinous” of crimes. The Centre, for its part, had condemned such acts as a product of sheer “animal instinct.” The Court had also pushed for a comprehensive policy framework to protect survivors, who often need extensive, ongoing medical treatment even after surviving an attack.
Key Takeaway: The net effect of the order: “acid attack victims” under the 2016 Act now includes both those forced to ingest acid and those left with internal injuries but no visible disfigurement, with the change backdated to 2016 so affected victims can claim benefits now, while the formal Schedule amendment is still pending.
M.C.Q.
Question 1: The Supreme Court recently expanded the definition of “acid attack victims” under which Act?
- A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- B. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
- C. National Trust Act, 1999
- D. Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
Question 2: The Supreme Court invoked which Article of the Constitution to extend disability benefits to victims of forcible acid ingestion until the law is formally amended?
- A. Article 32
- B. Article 136
- C. Article 142
- D. Article 226