Acid attack survivors who suffer internal injuries due to forced ingestion of the corrosive substance will now be entitled to benefits under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (RPwD), following a recent amendment that recognizes “internal” disfigurement as well, the Center told the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The move taken by the Center came in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling on May 4 which ruled that people forced to take acid will be entitled to benefits meant for persons with disabilities until a formal amendment is made in the law.
On Tuesday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Center submitted a copy of the May 22 notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment which made all victims of acid attacks, irrespective of internal or external injuries, at par under the RPwD Act.
Referring to this development, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said: “Since the above amendment is declaratory in nature, it is deemed to have been in existence since the time the 2016 Act came into being.”
The order came in a public interest litigation filed by Shaheen Malik, an acid attack survivor, which highlighted the plight of victims who were forced to drink acid and suffer permanent damage to internal organs for which they undergo lifelong treatment. However, since the RPwD Act only considers external deformity, these people fail to receive benefits under the Disability Act.
During the previous hearing, the Center informed the court that the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities was aware of this problem and advised changing the law.
Senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, who appeared for Malik, noted the court’s interest in issues related to issuance of disability certificate. He pointed out that while certificates are issued on the basis of standard disabilities, and the percentage of this disability is determined, there are no such standards available to determine the extent of internal damage and the center must formulate them.
“The exercise is ongoing as we are in the process of formulating guidelines,” Mehta said. In this matter, the court also cited concerns about trial delays, compensation for victims, and the ease of purchasing acid over the counter, which emboldens defendants and prolongs the suffering of victims, other attorneys who attended the case said.
The court agreed to consider these issues when the matter is considered next.
The PIL brought by Malik highlighted the legal divide as Section 326B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which has now been replaced by Section 124(2) of the BNS, specifically punishes the act of forcibly administering acid or attempting to administer acid with a minimum penalty of five years which can be extended to 7 years. However, the same is not reflected in the RPwD Act.
At the same time, the victim pointed out that the amount of sentences does not constitute a deterrent to carrying out this crime, which leaves victims with a permanent scar. The court has noted in the past that the Center could consider attaching the assets of the accused, a share of which could be given to victims who have to undergo costly reconstructive surgeries. At the same time, the Council held that to reduce the easy availability of acid, traders selling these products should be made vicariously liable and prosecuted. However, there has been no response yet from the Center to these proposals.
