SC seeks tougher punishment for acid attack convicts, flags need for law overhaul

Stressing the need for “extraordinary” and deterrent punishment in acid attack cases, the Supreme Court on Tuesday urged the Centre to consider amending the law to deal more sternly with such crimes, including by reversing the burden of proof on the accused on the lines of dowry death cases.

The court also sought extensive data from states and Union territories on acid attack incidents, prosecution outcomes and rehabilitation measures for victims, underscoring concern over delays, inadequate punishment and systemic failures in delivering justice.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Haryana-based Shaheen Malik, herself an acid attack survivor, seeking stronger legal safeguards and better rehabilitation for victims.

Observing that existing punishments have failed to deter such crimes, the bench said, “You have to take extraordinary punitive measures. Unless the punishment is painful for the accused, such offences are hardly going to stop. Reformative punishment theory has no place here.”

The Chief Justice flagged the need for legislative intervention and suggested that Parliament consider provisions similar to those governing dowry deaths, where the onus of proving innocence lies on the accused. “Think of some legislative intervention. This is not less serious than dowry death,” he said.

The bench also raised the possibility of attaching the assets of convicts to compensate victims. “Why can’t the assets of the accused be attached?” the CJI asked, stressing that deterrence must be central to sentencing in acid attack cases.

Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave was told that the issue may require amendments at the statutory level to ensure more stringent punishment and meaningful victim compensation.

Issuing directions, the court granted four weeks to all states and Union territories to furnish detailed, year-wise data on acid attack cases, including the number of FIRs registered, charge sheets filed, cases pending before trial courts and appeals before higher courts.

The bench also asked for particulars of victims, including their educational qualifications, employment and marital status, details of medical treatment undergone or required, and expenses incurred or likely to be incurred. States were further directed to provide information on rehabilitation schemes, compensation mechanisms and instances where victims were forced to ingest acid.

The court took note of Malik’s submission that all accused in her own case were acquitted after a prolonged trial, compelling her to challenge the acquittal before the Delhi High Court. Malik told the bench that she was 26 when the acid attack took place and is now 42, having spent 16 years pursuing justice.

She requested the court to direct expeditious disposal of her appeal. Acknowledging her ordeal, the bench offered legal aid and said she could be provided the services of senior lawyers of her choice.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had sought reports from all high courts on the pendency of acid attack cases. So far, 15 high courts have submitted data, which showed significant backlogs — Uttar Pradesh reported 198 pending cases, Gujarat 114, Bihar 68, West Bengal 60 and Maharashtra 58.

Taking note of these figures, the bench requested high courts to consider issuing administrative directions for time-bound and out-of-turn disposal of acid attack trials. It also directed all State Legal Services Authorities to submit details of schemes, if any, for rehabilitation, compensation and medical aid for victims.

On December 4 last year, the court had termed delays in acid attack trials a “mockery of the system” and issued notices to the Centre and the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities on the plea seeking recognition of acid attack survivors as persons with disabilities to enable access to welfare schemes.

The matter will be heard next after the Centre and states file their responses.