The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 must include under its ambit acid attack survivors who suffer internal injuries, even there is no outer disfigurement.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked the Central government to amend the Schedule under the Act to incorporate the change ordered by it to expand the definition.

At present, the Schedule attached with the Act defines acid attack victims as persons who get disfigured "due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance."

However, the Court noted that the definition excludes cases where such substances are forcibly administered.

"Pending the suitable amendment to the Schedule, it is directed that "acid attack victims" 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. This shall be deemed to have been included in the schedule since the inception of Persons with Disability Act," the Court ordered.

The Court passed the direction while invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

"We will appreciate if the deemed amendment is notified. Post the matter after two weeks," the Bench said.

The Court passed the order after Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said that the benefits of the 2016 law were being denied to such victims due to the narrow definition.

"The is acid attack case. We have some pressing issues and need relief. The Schedule appended to the 2016 Act has specified disabilities. It includes physical disability (acid attack victim means victims disfigured by throwing of acid)," Rohatgi said

In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that there was a need to amend the Schedule and not the Act.

The Court was hearing a petition in which it has been monitoring the pace of trials in acid attack cases across the country. In January, the Court had suggested stricter punishment in such cases.

Today, CJI Kant remarked that such attackers should be deprived of their assets.

"Why don't the assets of the attacker also be attached, including share in the coparcenary or Joint Hindu family party. We talk about self dignity etc...why should the accused not suffer?"

The Court also said that shopkeepers selling acid in such cases should be made to face the law.

"Also please think also how to entangle these shopkeepers also in the criminal investigation is very important...they should also face consequences."