Amended RPwD Act to include persons internally injured by acid ingestion, Centre tells Supreme Court
The Union government informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 14, 2026) of amending the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD) of 2016 to
The Union government informed the Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 14, 2026) of amending the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD) of 2016 to extend the definition of ‘acid attack victim’ to mean persons who have internal injuries caused by the ingestion of acid or any other similar corrosive substances. Appearing before a three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, said a notification was issued on May 22 by which the Act’s Schedule was amended to define an ‘acid attack victim’ as anyone “disfigured externally or internally due to violent assault, self-infliction, accident by throwing, administering, throwing or spilling of acid or similar corrosive substance”.
The amendment would have a retrospective effect, which would allow victims with internal injuries that occurred prior to May 22, 2026 to also claim benefits under the 2016 Act. The 2016 law had previously recognised only victims of acid-throwing, and not forcible acid ingestion. The Act had remained unchanged although the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code, accepted both the act of acid-throwing and administration of acid as offences punishable from 10 years’ imprisonment to a life sentence under Section 124 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt).
In May, the apex court had flexed its plenary powers to include survivors of forcible administration of acid in the category of ‘acid attack victims’ under the 2016 Act. The court took the extraordinary step in May to judicially intervene under Article 142 of the Constitution after senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, successfully urged the Bench that “those who suffered the extreme agony of having to forcibly ingest acid” must not be left out. In previous hearings, the court had even gone to the extent of indicating to the Centre to change the penal and bail laws to punish the perpetrators of this “most ruthless, most heinous” of crimes.
The Centre too had condemned such perverse acts, calling it a product of sheer “animal instinct”. The court had also suggested framing a comprehensive policy framework to protect the survivors, who, even if they survived, required extensive and continuous medical treatment.
The BriefWire