The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) distinguishes between throwing and administering acid, yet the RPwD Act, 2016 remains silent on the latter. Critically examine the statutory gap and the role of the Supreme Court in bridging it.

Q. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) distinguishes between throwing and administering acid, yet the RPwD Act, 2016 remains silent on the latter. Critically examine the statutory gap and the role of the Supreme Court in bridging it. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Section 124 of the BNS, 2023 punishes grievous hurt caused "by throwing acid on or by administering acid to" a person [1], yet the Schedule to the RPwD Act, 2016 recognised only those disfigured by the throwing of acid [2]. This mismatch between criminal law and welfare law left an entire class of survivors unprotected.

Nature of the statutory gap - Divergent taxonomies: the BNS expressly contemplates ingestion-based assault, while the RPwD Schedule, under Physical Disability–Locomotor, keyed eligibility to visible disfigurement [1][2]. - Denial of entitlements: survivors of forced ingestion suffer oesophageal and respiratory damage without external scarring, and were therefore refused disability certificates — losing the 4% reservation in government jobs and 5% in higher education [2]. - Legislative lag: the RPwD Act (2016) predates the BNS (in force 1 July 2024); statutes revised at different times were never harmonised — a systemic failure of legislative housekeeping. - Equity deficit: the Court found the definition under-inclusive, creating a "disability hierarchy" privileging visible injury over functional loss [3].

The Court's bridging role — merits - Invoked Article 142 to treat the widened definition as a deemed amendment, operative retrospectively from 2016, enabling past victims to claim benefits [3]. - Directed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to notify a formal amendment; the notification of 22 May 2026 now covers persons disfigured "externally or internally" by throwing, administering or spilling acid [4]. - A purposive reading advancing India's UNCRPD obligations and Article 21 dignity.

Limitations - Article 142 offers case-by-case relief; it cannot audit the wider statute book for similar mismatches. - Benefits remain contingent on state medical boards revising assessment protocols to certify internal injury.

Judicial intervention has converted a drafting oversight into an enforceable right, but the durable remedy lies in Parliament and ministries routinely aligning welfare statutes whenever criminal law is recast. A standing mechanism for statutory harmonisation, backed by trained certification boards, would make such rights self-executing rather than court-dependent.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023), India Code — Section 124 covering both throwing and administering of acid 2. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Act 49 of 2016), India Code — Schedule definition of acid attack victims; 4% and 5% reservations 3. Supreme Court of India — Shaheen Malik v. Union of India (2026) — "under-inclusive" definition, Article 142 deemed amendment, retrospective effect from 2016 4. Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment — Amendment to the Schedule of the RPwD Act, notification dated 22.05.2026 — revised definition covering external or internal injury by throwing, administering or spilling acid