New Delhi: Taking a firm stand against acid attacks, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said that persons found guilty of carrying out such crimes should have their assets seized and auctioned to compensate survivors. Describing acid attacks as offences that demand responses beyond routine criminal punishment, the court said “extraordinary punitive measures” are necessary to deliver justice, deter future crimes and ensure meaningful rehabilitation of victims.
The observations were made during the hearing of a petition filed by acid attack survivor and activist Shaheen Malik, who has sought stronger legal and institutional safeguards for survivors. The court noted that acid attacks are not merely physical assaults but crimes that permanently scar a person’s identity, dignity and life, warranting a justice framework that places survivors at its centre.
A Court Pushes Beyond Prison Sentences
During the proceedings, the court underlined that punishment in acid attack cases should not be limited to imprisonment alone. It said accountability must extend to the economic consequences of the crime, particularly given the lifelong medical, psychological and social costs borne by survivors. Seizing and auctioning the offender’s movable and immovable property, the court observed, could serve as both punishment and a tangible source of compensation.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
Survivor at the Centre of the Case
The bench rejected the idea that a purely reformative approach is appropriate for such offences. It said society must receive an unambiguous message that acid attacks will attract the harshest consequences under the law. According to the court, treating such crimes like ordinary offences dilutes their gravity and fails survivors.
The petition highlighted the profound trauma experienced by acid attack survivors, who often undergo multiple surgeries, long-term medical treatment and psychological counselling. In court, Shaheen Malik said the pain inflicted by acid is “unimaginable and lifelong”, destroying not just the body but a person’s sense of self and place in society. Survivors, she said, frequently face social stigma, loss of livelihood and isolation.
Rejecting a Purely Reformative Approach
Acknowledging these realities, the court said the justice system must ensure that compensation is timely, adequate and directly linked to the harm caused. It observed that existing compensation mechanisms often fall short, with survivors receiving delayed or insufficient support while incurring massive medical and rehabilitation expenses.
Call for Legislative Action and Systemic Change
The Supreme Court urged the Union government to consider legislative intervention to strengthen the legal framework dealing with acid attacks. It suggested that Parliament examine provisions that would mandate confiscation of offenders’ assets for survivor compensation, making economic liability an integral part of punishment.
The court also flagged the possibility of re-examining evidentiary standards in acid attack cases. It said that, depending on the facts, there could be scope to partially shift the burden of explanation onto the accused, particularly where the nature of the injuries and surrounding circumstances clearly point to culpability. While noting that such measures require careful legal scrutiny, the court said they merit serious discussion.
The judges emphasised that justice in acid attack cases must be survivor-oriented, focusing not only on conviction but also on long-term rehabilitation. This includes access to healthcare, reconstructive surgery, counselling, education, employment opportunities and social reintegration.
The court observed that acid attacks occupy a distinct category of crime due to their brutality and irreversible impact. “These offences cannot be treated as routine acts of violence,” the bench noted, stressing the need for strong deterrence and accountability.
Legal experts view the court’s remarks as a significant signal towards reshaping how the criminal justice system addresses acid attacks. By foregrounding asset seizure and survivor compensation, the court has highlighted gaps in existing law and enforcement.
The observations come at a time when concerns persist over low conviction rates, delays in compensation and inadequate rehabilitation for acid attack survivors across the country. The Supreme Court’s stance is being seen as a push towards a more victim-centric legal response.
