The Supreme Court's invocation of Article 142 to expand the definition of 'acid attack victim' under the RPwD Act, 2016 raises important questions about the limits of judicial legislation. Critically analyse.

Q. The Supreme Court's invocation of Article 142 to expand the definition of 'acid attack victim' under the RPwD Act, 2016 raises important questions about the limits of judicial legislation. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for "complete justice". Invoking it in May 2026, the Court read survivors of forcible acid ingestion into the Schedule of the RPwD Act, 2016, retrospectively from 2016 [1] — a just outcome reached by a constitutionally contestable route.

Why the intervention was justified - Curing an absurd exclusion: Section 124, BNS punishes both acid-throwing and forcible administration alike, yet the Schedule recognised only disfigurement by throwing — identical criminality, unequal civil remedy [1][2]. - Substantive equality: victims with internal oesophageal and gastric damage, largely women, were denied disability certificates, the 4% employment and 5% education reservation, and welfare pensions available to benchmark-disability holders [1][3]. - Treaty fidelity: the 2016 Act gives effect to the UNCRPD (ratified 2007), whose social model demands expansive, not literal, reading of disability [3]. - Retrospectivity from 2016 converts symbolic recognition into enforceable arrears of entitlement.

Where it strains the limits of judicial legislation - Separation of powers: the Schedule is amendable by the legislature, and a draft amendment was already before the Ministry of Legislative Affairs — the Court pre-empted a live democratic process rather than filling a vacuum [1]. - Article 142 cannot supplant substantive statutory text (Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 1998); "reading in" a new statutory category approaches drafting. - Capacity gap: Disability Assessment Boards lack protocols to quantify internal acid injury, and SIPDA — already flagged for fund-utilisation and allocation weaknesses — has no matching guidelines [4]. - Precedent risk: other unlisted conditions may now seek judicial listing, shifting a technical, evidence-based function to adjudication.

Thus the ruling is defensible in outcome but instructive in caution: Article 142 works best as a bridge, not a substitute, for legislative action. Parliament should promptly notify the amendment and the nodal Ministry frame internal-injury assessment protocols — securing, in the spirit of Article 41 and SDG-10, a genuinely victim-centric disability jurisprudence.

(~315 words)

Sources: 1. SC brings survivors of forcible ingestion of acid in RPwD Act — The Hindu, 5 May 2026 (title-only; official judgment page not verifiable) — the Article 142 order, retrospective effect from 2016, pending Schedule amendment before the Ministry of Legislative Affairs, Section 124 BNS parity 2. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — India Code — Schedule of specified disabilities, benchmark-disability threshold and entitlements 3. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2016 Passed by Parliament — PIB — 21 specified disabilities including acid attack victims, 4% reservation, UNCRPD alignment 4. Assessment of the Scheme for Implementation of the RPwD Act, 2016 (SIPDA) — PRS Legislative Research — implementation, allocation and fund-utilisation gaps