Supreme Court expands definition of acid attack victims under Disability Act to include administered acid and internal injuries
A Division Bench led by the Chief Justice held that victims to whom acid is administered, and those with internal injuries, are covered under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The Supreme Court on 4 May 2026 issued a clarificatory interpretation holding that the expression “acid attack victims” in the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 must be read to include persons on whom acid has been administered, and persons who have suffered internal injuries even without any external disfigurement. The direction came in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1112/2025 filed by Shaheen Malik against the Union of India. The Court was responding to a submission by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing as Amicus Curiae, that a significant category of acid attack survivors had been inadvertently left out of statutory protection. The interpretation is to operate from the inception of the 2016 Act, pending a formal amendment by the concerned Ministry.
The gap in the Schedule
The Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 lists “specified disabilities”, entitling persons who suffer from them to the statutory benefits the Act provides. Under Serial No. 1, the Schedule enumerates “physical disability”. Within that category, clause A defines “locomotor disability”, and sub-clause (e) of that definition includes “acid attack victims” — described as persons disfigured as a result of violent assaults involving the throwing of acid or similar corrosive substances.
The Amicus pointed out two problems with this formulation. First, it covers persons against whom acid is thrown, but not those on whom acid is administered. Second, the word “disfigured” confines coverage to external bodily disfigurement, leaving out victims who suffer internal injuries or internal scarring from acid being administered to them.
The Court accepted this reading. A plain reading of the sub-clause, it found, does not encompass victims to whom acid has been administered. The word “disfigured” further limits the scope to external disfigurement, thereby excluding internal injuries caused by the administration of acid.
The criminal law parallel
The Amicus drew attention to the criminal law on the subject. Section 326B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 punished any person who throws or attempts to throw acid, “or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means”, with imprisonment of not less than five years and up to seven years, along with a fine. The IPC has since been repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 124(2) of that enactment carries forward the identical formulation — covering those who throw or attempt to throw acid, or attempt to administer acid, or attempt to use any other means.
The criminal statute, therefore, treats the throwing and the administering of acid as equally culpable. The disability statute, as currently worded, did not extend the same equivalence to victims. The Court treated this discrepancy as reinforcing the case for a broader reading of the 2016 Act's Schedule.
Government's position and the Court's direction
The Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, submitted that the Nodal Ministry had already taken steps to amend the Schedule to the 2016 Act. The Court took note of this, but chose not to wait for the amendment before issuing a clarificatory direction.
The Court directed that, pending the formal amendment, the expression “acid attack victims” in the Schedule shall be construed to include victims to whom acid has been administered. It further directed that the expression shall include those who have suffered internal injuries, regardless of whether there is any external disfigurement of the body.
The Court specified that this clarificatory interpretation “shall be deemed to have been incorporated at Serial No. 1A(e) of the Schedule from the inception of the 2016 Act.” In other words, the direction operates retrospectively to the date the Act came into force. The Court also directed that the concerned Ministry formally notify the amendment.
The proceedings themselves arose from interlocutory orders passed by the High Court of Delhi. The Supreme Court expanded the scope of the writ petition to address the broader question of the challenges faced by acid attack victims.
Order
The Court directed that the expression “acid attack victims” at Serial No. 1A(e) of the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 be construed, with effect from the inception of the Act, to cover persons to whom acid has been administered and persons who have suffered internal injuries without external disfigurement. The Nodal Ministry was directed to formally notify the corresponding amendment to the Schedule. The matter was posted for compliance on 28 May 2026.