Supreme Court Asks for Same Acid Attack Laws for BNS and RPwD Act

The Supreme Court is pushing for consistent laws on acid attacks. This means the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act need to cover acid ingestion the same way.
By Newsroom | Law, India |

The Supreme Court is asserting that if the new penal code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), establishes "administering" acid as a distinct offense, then the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act must also incorporate this specific act. This call for parity underscores a judicial push for a more nuanced and comprehensive legal framework addressing the brutalities of acid attacks, particularly those involving forced ingestion.

The court's intervention highlights a perceived lacuna in the existing laws, where victims of acid ingestion might not be adequately covered under the definition of "acid attack victims" within the RPwD Act, despite the BNS potentially criminalizing the act of administering acid separately from merely throwing it. This distinction is crucial because acid ingestion, unlike external application, may not leave visible scars but can cause severe internal damage to vital organs.

Read More: Lawyers Blocked From Parliament Before Jury Trial Vote on April 15

"When BNS distinguishes between throwing and administering, the aspect of administration requires to be articulated in the RPwD Act also."

This observation, attributed to Justice Bagchi, points to a fundamental inconsistency. While the BNS appears poised to treat the act of forcing someone to consume acid as a specific offense, the RPwD Act's current definitions might not extend protection to such victims. This could leave individuals suffering from the severe internal consequences of ingested acid without the specific legal recourse and support systems afforded to those subjected to external acid attacks.

Supreme Court says if BNS treats ‘administering’ acid as separate offence, RPwD Act must too - 1

Stricter Punishments and Victim Support

The judiciary is not only scrutinizing the definitional aspects but also advocating for more stringent penalties for perpetrators. There's a strong sentiment that such heinous acts warrant punishment exceeding that prescribed under anti-terror statutes like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

  • Financial Strain on Victims: The court has also flagged the inadequacy of current compensation schemes. The legal limit of approximately ₹3 lakh, often provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or national legal services authority schemes, is deemed "unrealistic" given the lifelong medical treatment and care that acid attack survivors require.

  • Proposed Legal Avenues: To address this, the bench has suggested trying such cases under the 'attempt to murder' provision (Section 307 of the IPC, or its equivalent in the BNS), which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. This contrasts with the current practice of trying them under 'causing grievous hurt,' which carries lesser penalties.

  • Government Response: In response to these concerns, notices have been issued to all states and Union Territories. The central government has also sought more time to formulate a comprehensive policy framework specifically for acid attack victims, particularly those subjected to forced ingestion.

This judicial push originates from concerns about the severity of acid attacks and the often protracted legal processes involved. The court has previously expressed shock over cases pending for over 16 years. The discussions are also framed against the backdrop of the ongoing legislative reform, with the BNS set to replace older criminal laws. The court's directive emphasizes the need for these new laws and associated regulations to be both forward-looking and capable of addressing the evolving methods of inflicting harm.

Read More: India aims for 5.1% deficit in FY25, focusing on growth

'acid attacks' 'penal reform' 'disability rights' 'legal consistency' 'victim compensation'

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why did the Supreme Court talk about the BNS and RPwD Act for acid attacks?
The Supreme Court wants to make sure that if the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) law makes 'administering' acid a crime, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act also covers this. This is to ensure victims of forced acid consumption are protected equally.
Q: What is the difference between throwing acid and administering acid that the court mentioned?
The court noted that the BNS law might treat forcing someone to drink acid (administering) as a separate crime from throwing acid on them. Acid ingestion can cause severe internal damage without visible scars, which might not be covered well by current disability laws.
Q: What changes are being suggested for punishing acid attackers?
The court suggested that cases of acid attacks, especially forced ingestion, should be tried under 'attempt to murder' charges. This could lead to life imprisonment, which is stricter than the current 'causing grievous hurt' charges.
Q: Are current compensation amounts enough for acid attack victims?
No, the court feels the current compensation limit of about ₹3 lakh is too low. Acid attack survivors need lifelong medical care, and this amount is not enough to cover those costs.
Q: What is the government doing about these concerns?
The government has asked all states and Union Territories for their views. They have also asked for more time to create a special policy for acid attack victims, especially those who were forced to consume acid.