Acid attack survivors who suffer internal injuries through forced ingestion face a dual exclusion — from criminal justice and disability welfare. Discuss with reference to recent judicial developments.

Acid violence in India is punished under Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which covers grievous hurt caused "by throwing acid on or by administering acid to" a person [1]. Yet survivors force-fed acid, who suffer oesophageal and internal burns without visible disfigurement, long fell outside both robust prosecution and the disability welfare net — a gap the Supreme Court has now closed.

Exclusion from criminal justice

• Ingestion cases were routinely charged as ordinary acid-attack or hurt offences, though BNS Section 124 itself extends to administering acid with a minimum of ten years, extendable to life [1].
• The Court has held that forcing a victim to swallow acid, being potentially fatal, warrants trial for attempt to murder, ending the tendency to treat coerced ingestion as a lesser wrong [3].
• Invisible injury also weakens evidentiary proof, since medical opinion has traditionally centred on external disfigurement.

Exclusion from disability welfare

• The Schedule to the RPwD Act, 2016 recognised acid attack victims only as persons "disfigured due to violent assaults such as throwing of acid" [2].
• Without a disability certificate, ingestion survivors lost access to the Act's 4% reservation in government jobs and 5% in higher education, plus scheme benefits and concessions [2].
• The result was a taxonomy mismatch: criminal law had moved ahead of welfare law, penalising the act while denying the victim rehabilitative entitlement.

Judicial correction

• In Shaheen Malik v. Union of India (2026), a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant used Article 142 to read internal-injury and forced-ingestion victims into the Schedule, retrospective to 2016 [4].
• The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment subsequently notified the amended Schedule, converting judicial relief into statutory right [5].

The case shows constitutional courts repairing legislative lag so that Articles 14 and 21 reach the least visible victims. The durable solution lies in periodic statutory harmonisation whenever a parent code is rewritten, backed by retrained medical boards and survivor-led consultation — so that dignity, as the RPwD Act and UNCRPD promise, does not depend on whether a wound can be seen.