By Prof Upendra Baxi
The 77th Republic Day celebrations on January 26, 2026, graced by the two chief guests, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, alongside European Council President António Costa, marked a “middle powers” realignment in the era of chronic chaos and ethical bankruptcy of the superpowers.
This “historic moment” ushers in a new era of India-EU cooperation that exchanged many gifts of mutual understanding and cooperation, including unparalleled economic partnership. This is an event which will be long remembered well both by the EU and India for its global economic and cultural significance and the emergence of “middle powers” in an era of decline, and ethical decay, of “superpowers”.
That fully said, this article draws attention to the plight of women acid victims that engaged the anguished attention of Chief Justice Surya Kant (joined by Justice Joymalya Bagchi), who considered the case of Shaheen Malik, an acid victim survivor (forced to consume acid). She had to invest 16 years to obtain security and justice, and an expeditious disposal of appeal against the assailant, for an acid attack which “permanently altered her face, vision, and life”. Malik said she feels “broken not by the violence she endured, but by the justice system which she trusted for more than a decade and a half”. The acquittal verdict by a Delhi court of the three main accused of conspiring, along with a juvenile, to carry out the 2009 acid attack in Panipat, Haryana, has “shattered her faith in the system meant to protect survivors”. A Rohini court ended a long-durée trial that Malik has pursued since her twenties—a verdict which marks a “moment of profound personal and collective loss”.
At the age of 26 years, Malik was building a career in Panipat, while pursuing an MBA, and working as a student counsellor, when she was attacked with acid outside her workplace. The assault, she has consistently said, stemmed from “hostility and jealousy from colleagues who felt threatened by her confidence and professional growth”. In a press interview, she is on record as saying: “I fought this case for 16 years believing that truth and persistence would matter. She added: “Today I feel defeated—not because I survived an acid attack, but because the system could not deliver justice.”
ACID LAW
The system is that provided by the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (now rechristened as Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BSN). Section 224 of the BSN talks about “voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc”, describing hurt as causing permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or “maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person” or “causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt or causes a person to be in a permanent vegetative state”. It also promulgates a punishment with imprisonment for a term of minimum ten years, but extendable to imprisonment for life, and with fine, which “shall be just and reasonable” to be paid to the victim.
Further, any acts of forced throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a mandatory term of five years, but which may extend to seven years”. The offence is also punishable with fine. Explanation 1 provides inclusive notions of substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disabling “byforce”.
THE SUPREME COURT MEASURES
The Court is inevitably seized of this social menace. A decade-plus ago (in 2013), via an interim order, it had banned “over-the-counter sale” of acid at retail outlets. It also ordered a compensation of Rs three lakh to be paid by the state governments to each acid attack victim. An apex court bench headed by Justice RM Lodha said an acid attack victim would be paid Rs one lakh within 15 days of the incident and the remaining Rs two lakh within two months for treatment. Further, it “completely prohibited” over-the-counter sale of acid unless the seller maintains a log/register recording… the details of the person(s) to whom acid (s) is/are sold, the quantity sold and shall contain the address of the person to whom it is sold. The Court’s direction came on a public interest litigation filed by acid attack victim Laxmi, who sought the regulation of the sale of acid and treatment, rehabilitation and compensation for acid attack victim.
The Court decreed that the violation of its directions “shall attract prosecution under the Poisons Act, 1919”, and further directed that “the SDM shall be vested with the responsibility of fining the violators and initiating prosecution”. Directing that no acid would be sold to any person below the age of 18 years, the Court said that the seller would declare all the stock available with him to the Sub-divisional Magistrate (SDM) within 15 days from the date of the notification of the rules by the state governments. Retail outlets having licence to sell acid will maintain a stock register and failing to do so or possessing unaccounted acid will lead to a fine of Rs 50,000, the Court said.
Further, directing the renovation of a new legal ordering, it ordered that: all the states which already have rules to regulate the sale of acid will reinforce them and those who don’t have them will frame them within three months in accordance with the model rules framed by the central government. The Court said the rules should be made stringent as has been done in the model rules framed by the government.
The Supreme Court has also asked medical and educational institutions requiring acid in bulk to take permission of SDM before making the purchase. These institutions will delegate a person accountable for the possession and safe upkeep of acid and there shall be compulsory checking of students leaving the laboratories where acid is used. The learned justices said their order “shall be translated into vernacular languages and publicised in local newspapers and television channels”.
After the articulation of the judicial angst, the state and its law have formed the model rules to regulate the sale of acid throughout the country through retail outlets. The model rules seek to regulate the grant of licences and impose restrictions on the people to whom it could be sold. They also mandate maintenance of proper registers recording the sale of acid and by identifying the buyer to keep track of all sales. According to the rules, no person, not exempted under the provision of the Poisons Act, 1919, would engage in the sale of or possession of the poison (acid). They provide rules for the duration of licence, discretion of licensing authority, termination of licence, disposal of stocks on termination, revocation or cancellation of license, the person or firm whom license could be granted, etc. A licence holder shall not sell any poison to any person, unless the latter is “personally known to him or identified to his satisfaction by way of identity proof”.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, has called for information from all states about the pending cases of acid attacks. As per the status placed before the Court, 15 High Courts furnished details of pending acid attack cases. Uttar Pradesh has 198 pending cases, West Bengal 60, Gujarat 114, Bihar 68 and Maharashtra 58; further report is still awaited. Of course, the problem of what criminological theory names as the “dark figure of crime” remains daunting; one has no means of knowing how many cases are not reported. There are, as far as I know, no victim studies to provide us with more accurate data.
URGENT ACTION PLAN
While emphasizing the need for a vigorous judicial action to take acid cases urgently, the Court has urged the central government to consider “significant amendments” to the existing laws governing acid attacks. The CJI suggested that these offenses should be treated with the same seriousness as dowry deaths, where the burden of proof shifts to the accused. He has also suggested deterrent measures highlighting the “necessity of implementing extraordinary punitive measures against offenders”, stating further that “unless the penalties are sufficiently painful for the accused, such crimes are unlikely to cease and called for strict liability leading to the attachment of property”. The Court has, thus in effect, called for a shift “from reformative to deterrent justice” in these cases.
The learned chief justice proposed that the assets of convicted individuals in acid attack cases should be seized and potentially auctioned to provide compensation to victims. This approach aims to ensure that victims receive justice and support for their suffering. This will be done best where there is adequate and “better” victim support that more fully recognizes rehabilitation for acid attack survivors. This includes recognizing the unique challenges faced by victims, particularly those who have been forced to consume acid, and ensuring they receive adequate medical care and compensation. It expressed its angst over the delays in this, and such, cases, summoning a more activist judicial expedited proceeding.
SOCIAL ACTION ENGAGEMENT
Scattered histories of violence against women are prevalent in other societies, too. Internet sources mention these as comprising Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Colombia, China, Jamaica, Nepal, Uganda, and the United Kingdom. While there is a body called Acid Survival Trust International (AST), the problem of the dark figure of the crime haunts all measurement of acid violence. We remain much in the dark about best comparative governance, juridical, and justice practices in this area.
Certainty, the web search reveals that in India several women’s groups that are active on this issue. Make Love Not Scars is a prominent New Delhi non-profit organization that makes provisions for survivors, offering shelter, legal aid, psychological support, and vocational training. The organization helps women rebuild their confidence through “community and creative expression”. The Sheroes Hangout Café in Agra run by acid attack survivors, furnishes a narrative of another significant initiative. Perhaps, a more organized attempt is under way in the Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan’s Meer Foundation which pursues four E’s—“enable, enhance, encourage, and empower” women by making them feel appreciated and inspired, and to foster humility, pride and gallantry among the men in their lives. The recognition that “survivors are not defined by the effects of acid attacks or by the actions of their perpetrators” is a sovereign mandate (I thank Viplav Baxi for drawing my attention to this fine endeavour).
These movements have, to the best of my imperfect knowledge, not acquired the visage of national new social moments, and remain oases in the desert of total societal and state neglect—but this is a question in dire need of social studies.
CEASELESS STRUGGLE
Acid law and jurisprudence remain a drop on the ocean of state and civil society exertions of power and counterpower; these do not quite highlight that acts of the acid throwing/ingestion are an integral aspect of rape and femicide cultures.
I believe that the Court should eventually direct the national and state women’s commissions, the human rights commissions, and national human rights NGOs to file periodic reports under the mandate of Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution. There is precedent, as in the Agra Home Case also to order to the district magistrate to file a monthly report before the National Human Rights Commission [see, Dr Upendra Baxi and Ors (II) vs State of UP And Ors (CRLMP No.8032/2013) in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1900/1981].
To conclude: it is high time for the 75-plus-year-old Constitution to launch a determined and time-bound suo motu struggle against this monstrous violation of women rights as human rights. Only then, in Justice Krishna Iyer’s caustic words, will they be able to transform from merely playing the roles of “shop keepers of justice” and rather bring into being its votaries and “missionaries”.
—The writer is Emeritus Professor of Law, Warwick and Delhi University
The post Two Glorious Gifts On India’s 77th Republic Day appeared first on India Legal.