By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
The Supreme Court has once again demonstrated that meaningful change often begins with judicial courage. In its recent oral observations in Shaheen Malik vs Union of India (WP (C) No. 1112/2025), the Court brought national attention to the harrowing realities faced by acid attack survivors—and the glaring inadequacies of the current legal framework meant to protect them.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, suggested that legislative intervention may be necessary, including stricter punishment and even a reversal of the burden of proof in acid attack cases—on the lines of provisions governing dowry deaths This was not a technical aside. It was a clarion call.
ACID ATTACKS: VIOLENCE THAT DESTROYS IDENTITY
As primatologist Jane Goodall once observed: “An acid attack is a cowardly and inhumane assault on a person’s dignity and humanity, causing physical and psychological trauma.”
Acid attacks are not ordinary crimes. They are acts of calculated brutality—designed not merely to injure, but to annihilate identity, dignity, and the possibility of a future. Unlike other forms of violence, acid attacks leave scars that cannot be erased. Their impact is devastating and multidimensional:
• Physical Destruction: Permanent disfigurement, blindness, organ damage, and lifelong medical complications.
• Psychological Trauma: Depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and deep social withdrawal.
• Social Consequences: Stigma, rejection in marriage, exclusion from employment, and isolation.
The cruelty deepens further in cases where acid is not merely thrown on the victim—but the victim is forced to consume it. This is violence at its most perverse: an assault not just on the body, but on the very essence of human dignity.
WHO IS SHAHEEN MALIK—AND WHY HER CASE MATTERS
Shaheen Malik is herself an acid attack survivor. Today, she stands as a symbol of resilience and advocacy. Her petition before the Supreme Court seeks statutory recognition and protection for acid attack victims who are forced to consume acid—a category of survivors that has remained largely invisible in legal discourse.
During the hearing, the Court was informed that all accused in her case had been acquitted, prompting her to file a criminal appeal. Acknowledging the systemic hurdles survivors face, the bench extended legal-aid assistance to her—an important gesture, but one that also raises an uncomfortable question: Why do so many acid attack cases end in acquittal?
THE BURDEN OF PROOF: A SYSTEMIC FAILURE
One of the most formidable obstacles in prosecuting acid attack cases is the burden of proof. Survivors—often severely incapacitated—are expected to meet the highest evidentiary thresholds of criminal law. Witnesses turn hostile. Investigations falter. Loopholes are exploited.
Against this backdrop, the Court’s suggestion to reverse the burden of proof, akin to Section 304B of the IPC (dowry death), is both radical and necessary.
In dowry death cases, once certain foundational facts are established, the onus shifts to the accused to prove innocence. Applying a similar principle to acid attacks could drastically reduce acquittals and restore accountability—ensuring that justice does not collapse under procedural weight.
JUDICIAL DIRECTIONS: TOWARDS A HOLISTIC RESPONSE
Recognising the urgency of the issue, the Court issued a set of far-reaching directions:
• High Courts to prioritise and expedite acid attack trials and appeals.
• State Legal Services Authorities to submit details of rehabilitation, compensation, and medical-aid schemes.
• States and Union Territories to provide year-wise data on acid attacks, charge sheets, pendency, convictions, and appeals—along with comprehensive victim profiles covering education, employment, marital status, and medical expenditure.
• Separate data for victims forced to consume acid.
These directions reflect a crucial understanding: justice does not end with punishment—it must include rehabilitation, restitution, and dignity.
DETERRENCE THROUGH ACCOUNTABILITY
Chief Justice Surya Kant raised a powerful idea: deterrence through financial accountability. By suggesting the attachment of the accused’s assets to compensate survivors, the Court acknowledged two realities:
• Acid attacks require lifelong medical care that state compensation schemes rarely cover.
• Making offenders financially accountable strengthens deterrence and aligns with restorative justice principles.
Justice, in such cases, must repair harm—not merely pronounce guilt.
A CRIME ROOTED IN PATRIARCHY
Acid attacks are not random acts of violence. They are deeply entrenched in patriarchal notions of control and entitlement. The common triggers include:
• Rejection of marriage proposals or romantic advances.
• Domestic disputes.
• Property and financial conflicts.
Most victims are women. Most perpetrators are men unwilling to accept autonomy or refusal. Acid violence is thus not just criminal—it is structural.
REHABILITATION: THE FORGOTTEN BATTLEFIELD
Legal reform, while essential, is only half the battle. Survivors face formidable challenges long after courtrooms fall silent:
• Exclusion from education.
• Employment discrimination.
• Social stigma and marital rejection.
True rehabilitation must include:
• Free, lifelong medical care.
• Vocational training and employment pathways.
• Psychological counselling and social reintegration.
• Robust legal aid and financial compensation.
Civil society organisations have filled many gaps left by the state—campaigning, supporting, and advocating. Shaheen Malik’s petition is part of this collective movement for systemic change.
THE WAY FORWARD: FROM OBSERVATION TO LAW
Sections 326A and 326B of the IPC criminalise acid attacks—but they are no longer enough. Meaningful reform could include:
• Reversal of the burden of proof.
• Mandatory attachment of the accused’s assets.
• Time-bound trials and appeals.
• Statutory recognition of forced acid consumption as a distinct offence.
• Enhanced punishment reflecting the crime’s gravity.
Such measures would not only strengthen the law—they would reaffirm society’s moral compass.
FROM SYMBOLISM TO SUBSTANCE
The Supreme Court has lit a torch. But its observations must now travel beyond courtrooms into legislation, enforcement, and social change. Will the Union Government act? Will states prioritise these cases? Will survivors receive justice that is real—not rhetorical?
Law, after all, is not about statutes alone. It is about human lives, dignity, and hope. Shaheen Malik’s case reminds us that behind every legal provision lies a human story—of pain endured, resilience forged, and justice still awaited.
The Court has spoken. The responsibility now lies with all of us.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi
The post When The Law Must Burn Brighter appeared first on India Legal.