Amended RPwD Act to include persons internally injured by acid ingestion, Centre tells Supreme Court
The Central Government informed the Supreme Court that it has notified an amendment to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 to extend the definition of "acid attack victims" to include persons forcibly administered acid through ingestion, not only those disfigured by acid thrown on them.
The 2016 Act, as originally framed, recognised only externally visible disfigurement from acid-throwing as a specified disability; it did not cover internal injuries — such as damage to the oesophagus, airway, or digestive tract — suffered by victims of forced acid ingestion.
The notified amendment is to have retrospective effect from 2016, the year the RPwD Act came into force, allowing past victims of forced ingestion to now apply for disability certification and associated benefits.
The amendment follows a public interest litigation brought before the Supreme Court by an acid-attack survivor, which had earlier led the Court to direct an interim expansion of the statutory definition pending formal legislative amendment.
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016
The RPwD Act, 2016 replaced the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and expanded the recognised categories of disability from 7 to 21, giving statutory effect to India's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD, ratified by India in 2007). "Acid attack victims" is one of the 21 specified disabilities listed in the Schedule to the Act.
Key Details
- The Act introduces the concept of "benchmark disability" (40% or more of a specified disability) for reservation and certain welfare entitlements, distinct from simply having a "specified disability."
- The 21 categories include physical disabilities, intellectual disabilities, mental behaviour/illness, and disabilities caused by chronic neurological conditions and blood disorders, alongside acid attack victims.
- Reservation in government posts was raised from 3% (under the 1995 Act) to 4% under the 2016 Act; reservation in higher education institutions was set at not less than 5%.
- The Act is administered by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, with Chief Commissioners and State Commissioners for grievance redressal.
The amendment operates directly on the Schedule of this Act, widening who qualifies as an "acid attack victim" and therefore who can access disability certification, reservation, and welfare benefits under it.
Article 142 and Judicial Expansion Pending Legislative Amendment
Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary "for doing complete justice" in a matter before it. In this case, before the formal legislative/executive amendment was notified, the Supreme Court had itself directed that the term "acid attack victims" under the RPwD Act be read to include persons administered acid internally, invoking its Article 142 powers to prevent an interim legal vacuum for affected survivors.
Key Details
- Article 142 orders are binding until superseded by law and have previously been used in areas such as environmental remediation, the Bhopal gas tragedy settlement, and the Vishaka guidelines on workplace sexual harassment (later codified via the POSH Act, 2013).
- The pattern of the Court reading in a wider definition — followed later by executive/legislative ratification — mirrors the Vishaka precedent, where judicial guidelines preceded a full statutory framework.
- The amendment notified by the Centre gives permanent statutory backing to the interim judicial direction, replacing case-specific relief with a general rule applicable to all similarly placed survivors.
The retrospective 2016 effective date given to the amendment mirrors the logic of the Court's Article 142 intervention — treating the gap in the original Schedule as one that should never have excluded forced-ingestion survivors in the first place.
Legal Framework Around Acid Attacks in India
Acid attacks in India are addressed through a combination of criminal law provisions and regulation of acid sale, distinct from the disability-law framework under which this amendment falls. The Supreme Court's 2013 directions in Laxmi v. Union of India led to regulation of over-the-counter acid sales and a compensation framework for survivors, while the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 inserted specific offences into the Indian Penal Code.
Key Details
- Sections 326A and 326B were inserted into the (erstwhile) Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, criminalising voluntarily causing grievous hurt by acid attack and attempt to throw acid respectively; corresponding provisions now exist under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- The Laxmi judgment (2013) also directed states to regulate the retail sale of acid and mandated minimum compensation of ₹3 lakh to survivors, later revised upward by subsequent orders.
- The RPwD Act's disability-benefit framework operates alongside, not instead of, this criminal-law and compensation framework — a survivor can pursue criminal prosecution, victim compensation, and disability benefits concurrently.
The amendment addresses only the disability-recognition gap; it does not alter the separate criminal-law and compensation mechanisms already in place for acid-attack survivors, including those subjected to forced ingestion.
- RPwD Act, 2016 recognises 21 specified disabilities, up from 7 under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
- "Acid attack victims" is a distinct specified disability category under the Schedule to the RPwD Act, 2016.
- The notified amendment extends this category to persons with internal injuries from forced acid ingestion, with retrospective effect from 2016.
- Reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities: 4% in government posts, not less than 5% in higher education institutions, under the RPwD Act, 2016.
- Sections 326A/326B, Indian Penal Code (inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013) criminalise acid attacks; the Supreme Court's 2013 Laxmi v. Union of India ruling mandated regulation of acid sales and victim compensation.