Acid attacks: Supreme Court calls for complete ban or restricted retail sale of acid

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central government to consider whether the retail sale of acid should be completely banned or permitted only under stringent regulatory safeguards [Shaheen Malik v Union of India].

The Court passed the direction after being informed that acid continues to be easily available despite directions issued by the Court in 2013.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also directed all States and Union Territories to formulate rehabilitation schemes for acid attack victims and place them on record within 6 weeks.

"We are informed that certain guidelines were laid down in 2013, which have more or less become obsolete and are not being followed. That brings us to the Government of India. Let the Union consider formulating a scheme to ensure strict regulation of the retail sale of acid in the market," said the Court.

The directions came after Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal told the Court that a survey conducted by volunteers had found that acid could still be purchased easily, despite the safeguards laid down by the Court in 2013.

He said that the application before the Court sought a ban on retail sale, while industrial sale could continue. He argued that acid sold for household cleaning purposes could be replaced with alternative products.

Kirpal's submissions came after CJI Kant asked the parties to place in a tabulated form the issues raised in the matter, the orders already passed by the Court and the steps that remained to be taken.

"We can't put the burden on the victim to now tell us how to regulate it," said CJI Kant.

He added that the Court would seek the views of the Centre on how acid is manufactured and how it continues to remain readily available in the market.

Appearing for the Union, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati submitted that following the Court's directions in Laxmi v Union of India, the Centre had issued an advisory and framed Model Rules, which were sent to the state governments. However, ASG Bhati submitted that the States had neither constituted the required committees nor implemented the rules.

CJI Kant suggested several possible safeguards, including restricting sales by age, requiring purchasers to record in writing the reason for purchasing acid and maintaining those records.

The Court also highlighted the need for greater awareness about how acid attack victims should be treated immediately after an attack. CJI Kant said that NGOs could assist in developing awareness programmes, particularly for schools and colleges. Such education, he said should be made a compulsory part of the curriculum.

The NGOs assisting the Court were accordingly permitted to submit suggestions on curriculum covering preventive measures, post-attack treatment and emergency protocols within four weeks.

An acid attack survivor appearing during the proceedings urged the Court to impose a ban, submitting that 3 acid attacks happen everyday. She told the Court that she continued to suffer the psychological effects of an attack 17 years ago and urged it to act before more women became victims.

CJI Kant responded,

" हम लगे हुए हैं। कुछ ना कुछ करेंगे। इसको ऐसे नहीं छोड़ेंगे। कहीं न कहीं logical conclusion तक लेकर जाएंगे। (We are engaged in it. We will do something. We will not leave it like this. Somewhere or the other, we will take it to a logical conclusion)."

Kirpal also raised the issue of acid ingestion. He submitted that although the Union government had recognised acid ingestion as a disability, victims faced difficulties obtaining disability certificates because existing assessment criteria focused on physical disfigurement.

ASG Bhati said that the 2024 disability assessment guidelines were being amended following the change in the definition to include administration of acid. She told the Court that the final draft was ready and was undergoing final examination.

[Read Live Coverage]