Acid violence in India disproportionately affects women, yet the legal and rehabilitation framework remains inadequate. Examine with reference to the RPwD Act, 2016 and recent judicial interventions.

Q. Acid violence in India disproportionately affects women, yet the legal and rehabilitation framework remains inadequate. Examine with reference to the RPwD Act, 2016 and recent judicial interventions. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The RPwD Act, 2016 lists acid attack victims among its 21 specified disabilities [1], yet in May 2026 the Supreme Court had to invoke Article 142 to bring survivors forcibly made to ingest acid within the same Schedule [4]. The gap between rights on paper and relief in practice remains wide.

A gendered form of violence - Acid violence is overwhelmingly gender-targeted — most survivors are women, attacked over refused marriage or relationship proposals, as in Laxmi v. Union of India (2013) [4]. - Consequences are lifelong: disfigurement, blindness, loss of employability and marriage prospects, compounded by social stigma.

Gaps in the statutory framework - Section 124, BNS punishes both throwing acid and administering it, but the RPwD Schedule recognised only disfigurement by throwing, creating a two-tier class of survivors [1][4]. - The 40% benchmark disability threshold [1] maps poorly onto internal oesophageal or gastric damage, for which assessment protocols are undeveloped. - Entitlements — 4% reservation in government employment, 5% in higher education, pensions [2] — therefore never reached ingestion survivors.

Judicial interventions: corrective but partial - Laxmi (2013) secured regulation of over-the-counter acid sale and a compensation floor, yet State-level compliance has been uneven [4]. - The May 2026 ruling read ingestion survivors into the Schedule with retrospective effect from 2016, rather than awaiting the ministry's pending amendment [4]. - Judicial reading-in is a remedial patch, not a substitute for drafting that anticipates such harms.

Rehabilitation deficit - SIPDA, the centrally funded umbrella scheme, supports accessibility and district rehabilitation centres [5]; the Standing Committee (2021) faulted its single-allocation design for diluting sub-scheme objectives [3]. - Certification, burn-care and psycho-social capacity remains thin at the district level [3].

Acid violence thus sits at the intersection of gender-based violence and disability rights, advancing largely when courts have pushed it. Codifying the expanded definition, framing assessment protocols for internal injuries, and creating a single compensation-cum-rehabilitation window would give real effect to the UNCRPD's social model and to Articles 14 and 21.

(~335 words)

Sources: 1. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — India Code — 21 specified disabilities including acid attack victims; 40% benchmark disability; education reservation 2. PIB: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2016 Passed by Parliament — expansion from 7 to 21 disabilities; 4% reservation in government employment 3. PRS Legislative Research: Assessment of SIPDA — Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment (2021) — single-allocation design diluting sub-scheme objectives; district rehabilitation capacity 4. Supreme Court of India — Laxmi v. Union of India (2013) acid-sale regulation and compensation; May 2026 order under Article 142 reading forcible-ingestion survivors into the RPwD Schedule retrospectively from 2016 5. DEPwD: Scheme for Implementation of the RPwD Act (SIPDA) — centrally funded umbrella scheme for accessibility and district rehabilitation centres