Discuss the significance of the Supreme Court's use of its plenary powers to expand the definition of 'acid attack victim' under the RPwD Act, 2016. Does this represent judicial overreach or a necessary corrective to legislative inertia?

Q. Discuss the significance of the Supreme Court's use of its plenary powers to expand the definition of 'acid attack victim' under the RPwD Act, 2016. Does this represent judicial overreach or a necessary corrective to legislative inertia? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 lists "acid attack victims" among its specified disabilities, but its Schedule covered only persons disfigured by the throwing of acid [1]. In Shaheen Malik (2026), the Supreme Court invoked its plenary power to extend the Act to survivors of forced acid ingestion — a corrective to statutory lag rather than overreach.

Significance of the expansion - Substantive equality: internal corrosive injury is often more disabling than visible scarring, yet went unrecognised; certification now unlocks the Act's entitlements, including 4% reservation in government posts and 5% in higher education [1]. - Retrospective benefit: the widened meaning covers survivors injured before the change, a rare instance of beneficial retroactivity in welfare law. - Gender lens: forced ingestion typically occurs in domestic or intimate-partner settings, so the change aligns disability law with the reality of gendered violence. - Executive compliance: the Centre amended the Schedule by notification (22 May 2026) through the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, the nodal authority administering the Act [2].

A necessary corrective, not overreach - Inter-statute mismatch: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 124 already punishes both throwing and administering acid with 10 years to life [3], while the welfare statute stayed narrow — the Court only closed the gap. - The Court neither created an offence nor framed policy; it applied Article 142's "complete justice" mandate [4] and left the amendment to the executive's own delegated route. - Denying benefits for want of a definition offended equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21 [4].

Legitimate cautions - Plenary power lacks settled criteria; repeated use risks blurring the separation of powers. - Substantive rights were widened by notification, not parliamentary deliberation.

The episode shows judicial review functioning as a corrective rather than a substitute for lawmaking. A periodic legislative review of scheduled disabilities, backed by district-level certification capacity, would let Parliament — not litigation — keep welfare law abreast of criminal law, realising the Act's UNCRPD promise of dignity for every survivor.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (India Code) — Schedule of specified disabilities including acid attack victims; reservation in employment and higher education 2. Acts, Rules & Regulations, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) — nodal department administering the Act and its Schedule notifications 3. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (India Code) — Section 124: grievous hurt by throwing or administering acid, 10 years to life 4. The Constitution of India (India Code) — Article 142 "complete justice"; Articles 14 and 21