Supreme Court Moots Complete Ban On Retail Sale of Acid; Seeks Centre's Response

The Supreme Court today has sought a response from the Centre on whether a complete ban on the retail sale of acid should be imposed or not.

An issue was raised today before court pertaining to the sale of acid in the market as it was informed that certain guidelines were laid down in 2013, which have more or less become obsolete and are not being followed.

Accordingly, a CJI Surya Kant led bench has directed, "Let the Union consider formulating a scheme to ensure strict regulation of the retail sale of acid in the market. The Union shall also respond as to why a complete ban on the retail sale of acid should not be imposed, or, in the alternative, whether such sale should be permitted subject to stringent regulatory measures. All the State Governments which have not framed rules shall do so. The NGOs which have come forward to assist the Court may also submit their suggestions and recommendations, specifically with respect to the curriculum likely to be introduced at the school and college level for creating awareness regarding preventive measures, post-attack treatment and protocols, and how to deal with acid attack cases on an emergency basis. The suggestions shall also be placed on record within four weeks."

The Supreme Court's order was prompted by submissions made before it by an acid attack survivor who told court, "Government aati hai, bolti hai hum kaam karenge but kuch hota nhi hai..aur kitni ladkiyon ki zindagi kharaab hogi? Humare NGO mei ek ladki hai..uski dono aankhen chali gyi..uska kya career ho sakta tha..padhai likhai sab choot gyi..koi hume seriously nhi leta kyunki hum kisiko matter nhi karte..jab bhi ladki ghar se nikalti hai. ek darr rehta hai ki koi paani ki tarah kuch fekenga aur poora chehra damage ho jaega..kitni aur ladkiyaan?"

"Aapse umeed hai, Supreme Court desh ki sabse badi adalat hai..Aapse umeed hai aur ladkiyon ki zindagi na kharaab ho..rehabilitation baad mei, pehle sale pe rok honi chahiye..," court was further told.

In response, CJI Kant said, "Hum lage hue hai..kuch na kuch karenge..isko aise nhi chodenge..logical conclusion tak leke jaenge.."

Recently, the Central government had informed the Supreme Court that it notified an amendment in the law to extend the benefits of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to acid attack survivors who suffer from only internal injuries without any external disfigurement.

This was after Supreme Court had ordered that the term "acid attack victims" as under the Rights of Persons With Disability Act shall also include victims to whom acid has been administered and further include those who have suffered internal injury even though there is no outer disfigurement.

In January, the court had mulled over selling assets of acid attack accused to provide compensation to victims, highlighting the need for more effective financial rehabilitation of the survivors. CJI Kant had further said the court will make sure the petitioner Malik she gets the best lawyer to fight her case in the high court. This assurance came as the survivor told the court that "all accused had been acquitted by a lower court".

Court had taken a stern view of rising acid crimes, especially cases involving the forceful ingestion of acid, and directed the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to expedite all five pending trials. During a hearing, the petitioner Shaheen Malik had highlighted an especially brutal case involving a 28-year-old woman who was allegedly forced to drink acid. She now weighs barely 20 kilograms, with a haemoglobin level of 3 court was told. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had described such acts as “animal instinct,” adding that people who commit these crimes “have no right to roam in society.” The CJI agreed, calling them a threat not just to civilians but to the rule of law itself. The Bench also noted that NALSA schemes were functioning effectively and that coordination with state governments had improved. SG Mehta reminded the Court that the Criminal Procedure Code allows courts to direct the accused to pay compensation to victims.

Previously the Court had come down heavily on the prolonged pendency of acid attack trials in the country, calling the 15-year delay in the prosecution of survivor Shaheen Malik’s case “a mockery of the legal system.” The Court had issued notice on Mallik’s Public Interest Litigation seeking systemic reforms, stronger safeguards, and faster trials for acid attack cases.

The Bench had heard the matter, with Mallik; who survived a brutal acid attack in 2009, appearing in person. She told the Court that despite the attack taking place 15 years ago, the case had not progressed meaningfully for a decade. “In 2009, the attack took place and till 2019 nothing happened. I had lost all hope in law and justice,” Malik had said. She added that she regained the courage to continue her legal fight only after a Judicial Officer, Parvinder Kaur (currently a District Judge), who helped revive her case. Mallik informed the Court that the matter is currently at the stage of final arguments before a Rohini District Court and no conviction has been secured so far.

The Chief Justice had said the Court would direct day-to-day hearings to ensure completion of the trial. He further advised Mallik to file an application in the pending PIL so that her individual case could be taken up under judicial supervision. The PIL filed through AoR Anuj Kapoor, highlights a legislative gap that excludes victims of forceful acid ingestion from the protections and benefits available to “acid attack victims” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. It seeks directions to the Union Government to amend the Schedule to the RPwD Act to ensure that persons who have been forcibly administered acid are recognised as “acid attack victims” under the category of locomotor disability.

The plea submits that these survivors suffer severe internal injuries affecting basic functions such as eating, swallowing, and speaking, but remain ineligible for disability certification because the current definition covers only those “disfigured by violent assaults involving the throwing of acid.” The petition stresses that a disability certificate under the RPwD Act is a mandatory prerequisite for accessing financial assistance, rehabilitation, and welfare schemes notified by states. Due to the narrow definition, victims of acid ingestion cannot obtain these certificates and are effectively denied critical state support for recovery.

Case Title: Shaheen Malik v. Union of India

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Mohana

Hearing Date: August 31, 2026