Supreme Court examines disability rights gap for acid ingestion victims under RPwD Act 2016
Contents4
Indian Express - Explained · 21 Mar 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Social justice High relevance
The Supreme Court acknowledged a PIL seeking inclusion of forceful acid ingestion victims under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, highlighting a legal gap that excludes internal injuries from disability recognition and state benefits.
Key points
Shaheen Malik, an acid attack survivor, filed a PIL demanding expansion of the RPwD Act 2016 to cover victims of forceful acid ingestion, currently excluded from disability recognition.
The Act's schedule defines acid attack victims under Locomotor Disability only for those disfigured by 'throwing' acid, creating an arbitrary distinction despite equal penal treatment under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 124.
[GS2-Polity] This case tests Article 14 equality principles, as the classification lacks rational connection to the Act's objective of supporting persons with disabilities.
Victims of acid ingestion suffer internal visceral damage requiring lifelong medical care but cannot obtain disability certificates due to focus on external scars in assessment guidelines.
Exclusion from disability certificates denies access to state schemes like Haryana's Rs 8,000 monthly support, violating Article 21 rights to life and dignity through denial of rehabilitative support.
[GS4-Ethics] The petition advocates a functional approach to disability aligned with UN conventions, considering limitations on major life activities like eating and digestion.
The Supreme Court has directed all states to submit data on acid attacks, including forceful ingestion cases, and show cause for not implementing rehabilitation schemes for survivors.
Way Forward: Amend RPwD Act's definition to include all acid assault methods, develop specific medical assessment criteria for internal injuries, and mandate inclusive rehabilitation schemes across all states.
Key terms
- RPwD Act 2016
- The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act replaced the 1995 Act to comply with UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It expanded disability categories from 7 to 21 and increased reservation from 3% to 4% in government jobs. For UPSC, it's significant for governance questions on inclusive policies and constitutional rights.
- Article 14
- Constitutional guarantee of equality before law and equal protection of laws. For UPSC, its relevance lies in testing arbitrary state action and reasonable classification doctrine, frequently examined in rights-based litigation and policy challenges.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- The 2023 criminal code replacing IPC, effective from 2024. Section 124 equally penalizes acid throwing and administration. UPSC relevance: demonstrates criminal law reform continuity while exposing gaps in complementary welfare legislation.
- Locomotor Disability
- A disability category under RPwD Act involving movement limitation. UPSC focus: how legal definitions can exclude comparable disabilities, requiring harmonization with medical realities and constitutional mandates.
Practice question
Critically analyze the gaps in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 concerning acid attack victims, with special reference to the recent Supreme Court PIL on forceful acid ingestion. (250 words, 15 marks)
GS2 15 marks 250 words Mains
Key terms to include: RPwD Act 2016 Article 14 Article 21 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Locomotor Disability UN Convention functional approach rehabilitation schemes
Answer framework
Introduction
Briefly introduce the RPwD Act 2016 and its objectives. Mention the PIL filed by Shaheen Malik highlighting the exclusion of forceful acid ingestion victims from disability recognition.
Legal and Constitutional Gaps
Current Act covers only victims disfigured by 'throwing' acid under Locomotor Disability, ignoring internal injuries from ingestion.
Violates Article 14's equality principle due to arbitrary classification without rational basis.
Contradicts Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 124 which equally penalizes all forms of acid attacks.
Impact on Victims
Denial of disability certificates excludes victims from state benefits like monthly financial support.
Lack of recognition for internal visceral damage leads to inadequate medical and rehabilitative support.
Violates Article 21 rights to life and dignity by denying essential healthcare and livelihood opportunities.
International and Ethical Considerations
Misalignment with UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities which advocates a functional approach to disability.
Ethical failure to recognize the severe and lifelong disabilities caused by internal injuries from acid ingestion.
Conclusion
Suggest amendments to the RPwD Act to include all forms of acid attacks, develop specific medical criteria for internal injuries, and ensure inclusive rehabilitation schemes. Emphasize the need for a harmonized approach with constitutional and international obligations.
Fact check
All facts verified