Why not sell assets of accused to compensate acid attack victims?: Supreme Court

Supreme Court

• Supreme Court considers using acid attack convicts' assets for victim compensation
• Court calls for tougher penalties and improved rehab for acid attack survivors
• High Courts told to expedite acid attack cases and improve victim support data

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised a fundamental question on whether the assets of those convicted in acid attack cases should be auctioned to provide meaningful compensation to survivors.

The bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, observed that present compensation levels are far from adequate to address the lifelong medical and rehabilitative needs of victims.

“Why assets of accused should not be attached? If a person is found guilty of acid attack, why all his immoveable assets be not acquired and used to compensate victim?” the Chief Justice asked, underlining that ordinary punishment may not be enough to prevent such crimes.

He added, “You have to take some extraordinary punitive measures. Unless action is so painful...deterrent theory must be followed here.”

The Court noted that the minimum compensation of Rs 3 lakh currently prescribed by states does not reflect the gravity of suffering endured by survivors, many of whom undergo repeated surgeries and face permanent disabilities.

The bench said that the state must ensure more effective implementation of compensation and rehabilitation mechanisms.

The Court also suggested that Parliament may consider legislative intervention to introduce harsher punishment and procedural changes in acid attack cases.

“Think of some legislative intervention.. this is not less serious than dowry death also,” CJI Kant said, while referring to the possibility of reversing the burden of proof in certain circumstances, similar to provisions applicable in dowry death cases.

Survivor’s PIL and plea for faster justice

The observations came while the Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Shaheen Malik, an acid attack survivor and founder of NGO Brave Souls Foundation.

Malik was present in Court and informed the bench that all accused in her case had been acquitted by a lower court, and she has challenged the acquittal before the High Court.

“I have already spent 16 years of my life fighting this case, but unfortunately, all the accused are acquitted,” she told the Court. “I was 26-year-old when I was attacked, now I am 42. I have lost crucial years in the fight, but still don't know where I stand.”

Taking note of her situation, the CJI Kant assured that the Supreme Court would ensure she gets appropriate legal assistance to pursue her appeal. Malik also requested that her criminal appeal be heard expeditiously, pointing out that the trial itself had remained pending for seven years.

Her petition highlights gaps in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, stating that victims who are forced to ingest acid are not recognised as disabled, while those on whom acid is thrown are covered. The Court had earlier sought responses from the Centre and states on this issue.

Malik informed the bench that she has undergone 25 surgeries and that several survivors have lost their eyesight and continue to await proper rehabilitation and long-term support.

Directions to States, High Courts and Centre

The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to consider expediting acid attack cases and disposing of them on a priority, time-bound basis.

It noted that reports have been received from only 15 High Courts so far, showing significant pendency. Uttar Pradesh has 198 pending cases, Gujarat 114, Bihar 68, West Bengal 60 and Maharashtra 58, while data from several other High Courts is still awaited.

The bench asked all states and Union Territories to submit, within four weeks, year-wise details of acid attack incidents, whether charge sheets were filed, and the status of trials and appeals.

Authorities must also furnish particulars of each victim, including education, employment, marital status, medical treatment and expenses incurred or proposed by the state. Separate data has been sought for victims who were forced to consume acid.

All State Legal Services Authorities have been directed to place on record details of schemes, if any, implemented for rehabilitation, compensation and medical aid to survivors.

The Court also recalled its 2013 directions regulating acid sales, which require buyers to produce valid identity proof, explain the purpose of purchase, and prohibit sale to persons below 18 years of age, with all transactions to be reported to police.

On the gravity of the offence, the Chief Justice said, “We need an extraordinarily painful punishment to prevent these heinous crimes,” adding that stronger legal frameworks and victim-centric remedies are essential to ensure justice and deterrence.