‘Rs 20 worth of acid can destroy an entire life…glad SC has recognised the urgency’

A Devastating Crime That Demands Extraordinary Justice

Acid attacks represent one of the most brutal and life-altering crimes in India, capable of destroying a person's entire future with something as inexpensive as a bottle of acid. The Supreme Court of India has now taken a decisive stance on this issue, recognizing that conventional punishment approaches have failed to deter these heinous acts. In a landmark hearing held on January 27, 2026, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made forceful observations about the need for stricter, more painful consequences for perpetrators. The case was brought before the court through a public interest litigation filed by acid attack survivor Shaheen Malik, whose personal struggle highlights the systemic failures in addressing this form of violence.

Supreme Court's Bold New Approach to Punishment

At just 26 years old, Malik was pursuing her MBA when colleagues threw acid on her outside her workplace in Panipat. The attack left her blind in one eye and subjected her to a lifetime of surgical procedures and pain. What makes her case even more troubling is that sixteen years after the attack, her attackers continue to roam free, while she has spent nearly two decades fighting through the judicial system for basic recognition and support. Her decision to approach the Supreme Court was driven by the realization that existing laws and systems simply do not adequately protect or compensate victims who have been forced to consume acid—a particularly brutal variation of this crime that often goes unrecognized in investigations and prosecutions.

The Chief Justice made a striking statement that encapsulates the court's new philosophy on acid attacks: the punishment must hurt, and there is no place for reformative theory in these cases. He emphasized that unless the consequences are extremely painful for the accused, deterrence will not work. This represents a significant departure from traditional sentencing approaches and signals that the court views acid attacks as crimes requiring extraordinary measures beyond routine imprisonment. The bench suggested that immovable assets of convicted acid attackers should be attached and auctioned by prosecuting agencies to directly compensate victims. This approach transforms punishment from mere incarceration to economic deprivation, targeting the offender's wealth and resources.

The Call for Legislative Intervention and Systemic Reform

The Chief Justice posed a pointed question to the government counsel: "Why not seize everything?" This rhetorical flourish underscores the court's frustration with the existing legal framework and its inadequacy in deterring such attacks. The court observed that punishment without economic consequences fails to create sufficient deterrence, particularly in crimes targeting vulnerable groups like women and children. By recommending the confiscation of assets, the court aims to make the price of committing an acid attack prohibitively high, both in terms of freedom and financial security. The bench also directed all state governments and union territories to furnish detailed information about acid attack cases, including yearly incident reports, chargesheet filing status, conviction rates, and pending cases.

Recognizing that existing laws may be insufficient, the Supreme Court urged the Union Government to consider legislative intervention specifically targeting acid attacks. The court suggested that Parliament might need to carve out an exception to general sentencing policy in these cases, treating them with the same severity as dowry death cases. The court also proposed reversing the burden of proof in acid attack cases, placing the onus on the accused rather than the prosecution—a significant shift that could strengthen the prosecution's position and facilitate convictions. This approach would require substantial legislative change but reflects the court's conviction that extraordinary crimes demand extraordinary legal tools.

Victim Compensation and the Failure of Current Systems

The court requested all high courts to prioritize and conclude acid attack trials on a time-bound and out-of-turn basis, acknowledging that prolonged legal proceedings compound the trauma experienced by survivors. Additionally, the court directed state legal services authorities to document all rehabilitation schemes, medical support programs, and compensation mechanisms currently available to victims. This comprehensive approach aims to create a coordinated national response to acid attacks rather than leaving survivors to navigate fragmented, inconsistent systems across different states.

Rs 20 worth of acid can destroy an entire life, and the Supreme Court has finally recognized the urgency of this reality and the need for systemic change.

Despite legal mandates requiring both government and private hospitals to provide free treatment to acid attack victims, this requirement remains largely unimplemented. Private hospitals routinely refuse to treat acid attack survivors without payment, and the refusal to provide free treatment is technically a punishable offense under existing law—yet enforcement has been virtually absent. Victims seeking enhanced compensation face bureaucratic resistance, and their disabilities often go unrecognized by official systems. The Supreme Court's focus on victim rehabilitation is rooted in constitutional principles, specifically Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. The court has previously established that dignity, bodily integrity, and rehabilitation must be recognized as enforceable rights rather than discretionary welfare measures.

The Broader Implications for Criminal Justice Reform

Earlier Supreme Court decisions had mandated minimum compensation of 3 lakh rupees for acid attack victims and the regulation of acid sales to prevent easy access. However, the persistent gap between these court-ordered protections and ground-level implementation demonstrates why repeated judicial intervention has been necessary. The court emphasized that compensation cannot be made contingent on identifying or convicting the offender—victim relief must flow from the state's constitutional obligation, not prosecutorial success. This principle acknowledges that many acid attack survivors suffer their injuries in the absence of conviction, yet they deserve support regardless. The new emphasis on asset seizure and extraordinary punishment measures reflects the court's growing frustration with executive inaction and its determination to force systemic change through judicial power.

The Supreme Court's stance on acid attacks signals a potential shift in how Indian courts approach crimes involving extreme violence and lasting trauma. By advocating for economic punishment and reversed burden of proof, the court is experimenting with legal mechanisms that prioritize deterrence and victim protection over purely retributive or reformative justice. The hearing also revealed systemic inequalities, as acid attacks disproportionately affect women and children, often motivated by jealousy, rejection, or domestic conflict. The court's recognition of this pattern and its commitment to extraordinary measures reflects an understanding that conventional legal responses have failed to protect vulnerable populations. The recommendation for legislative intervention suggests that the court believes only parliamentary action can fundamentally reshape how society responds to acid violence.

As the Supreme Court continues to monitor implementation of its orders and await government responses on legislative proposals, the case of Shaheen Malik serves as a reminder of what is at stake. A single bottle of inexpensive acid can obliterate someone's vision, physical appearance, health, education, employment prospects, and psychological well-being in moments. The fact that such devastating attacks can be perpetrated with such readily available materials, followed by years of legal delays and minimal consequences for perpetrators, represents a profound failure of the state's protective function. The Supreme Court's current intervention marks the most forceful judicial push yet to make acid attacks genuinely consequential for offenders and genuinely protective for survivors. Whether the government will translate these judicial observations into concrete legislative action remains to be seen, but the court has made clear that incremental reform is no longer acceptable.

The Supreme Court's recent intervention in acid attack cases represents a watershed moment in Indian criminal justice. By calling for extraordinary punitive measures, legislative reform, and systemic accountability, the court has acknowledged the utter inadequacy of existing responses to one of India's most brutal crimes. Shaheen Malik's sixteen-year legal struggle and her decision to approach the Supreme Court have forced the judiciary to confront the devastating human cost of acid violence and the shameful delays that compound survivors' suffering. The court's proposed solutions—asset seizure, reversed burden of proof, expedited trials, and mandatory rehabilitation schemes—offer a comprehensive framework for change. Whether these recommendations will be implemented depends on the government's willingness to act and the judiciary's commitment to enforce its orders. What remains undeniable is that survivors of acid attacks deserve far more protection, compensation, and justice than the current system has provided, and the Supreme Court has finally articulated this truth with unmistakable clarity.