Supreme Court says if BNS treats ‘administering’ acid as separate offence, RPwD Act must too

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 9, 2026) said if the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) distinguished between “throwing” acid and “administering” the corrosive substance with the intention to voluntarily cause grievous hurt to a person, the Right to Persons with Disability (RPwD) Act must also follow suit.

The observation was made by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi to the Union government while hearing a petition filed by an acid attack survivor, Shaheen Malik.

Ms. Malik, herself an acid attack survivor, has specifically sought to bring victims who were forcefully made to ingest acid, and with a criminal case registered against their attackers, to be brought under the protective umbrella of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

“When BNS distinguishes between throwing and administering, the aspect of administration requires to be articulated in the RPwD Act also,” Justice Bagchi addressed Additional Solicitor-General Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for the Centre.

Chief Justice Kant said statutory provisions should be able to cover not only acts committed, but also be able to foresee offences which in all probability may occur in the future.

‘Undue advantage’

“The perpetrators of crime should not be able to take any undue advantage. Even if an offence is capable of being committed, that itself is a sufficient guideline to enact a provision [to counter it],” Chief Justice Kant observed orally.

Ms. Dave said the definitions in the RPwD Act may have to be amended to incorporate or extend the ambit of the statute. She sought more time to return with a comprehensive response.

Section 124 of the BNS covers the offence of “voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.”. It provides that “whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person…”

In an earlier hearing in the case, the top court had voiced zero tolerance for acid attackers, especially criminals who forcibly administer acid to their victims.

It was discussed in the hearing that women in abusive marital homes were more vulnerable to this kind of an attack. The court had orally said that perpetrators of such heinous acts deserve punishment more stringent than under anti-terror laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Chief Justice Kant 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. It said the government should consider a comprehensive policy framework to protect the survivors, who, even if they survive, require extensive and continuous medical treatment. The court had said that accused, if found guilty, must be made to pay a hefty penalty to their victims.

The Centre, represented by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, too had condemned such perverse acts, calling it a product of sheer “animal instinct”.