Introduction
Acid attacks represent one of the most horrific and gendered forms of violence in India, where corrosive substances are used as weapons to inflict irreparable physical and psychological damage most often upon women. The crime is brutal in its intent and irreversible in its impact, leading to lifelong trauma, disfigurement, and social ostracisation. While incidents of acid violence have occurred globally, India has seen a disproportionate number of such attacks over the years, revealing deep-rooted issues of misogyny, entitlement, and a failure of state mechanisms.
It took decades for the Indian legal framework to formally recognize acid attacks as a distinct criminal offense. Prior to 2013, such assaults were prosecuted under general provisions relating to grievous hurt, which failed to capture the unique brutality and consequences of these crimes. Since then, both legislative and judicial mechanisms have evolved to offer better protection, regulation, and redressal. However, significant challenges persist in implementation, enforcement, and rehabilitation.
Understanding Acid Violence: Social and Legal Context
Acid attacks are usually carried out with the intent to disfigure, punish, or destroy the identity of the victim, often as retaliation for rejecting advances, refusing marriage proposals, dowry-related demands, or asserting autonomy. The gendered nature of these attacks makes it not merely a criminal act but also a manifestation of deep-seated patriarchal structures.
Before the year 2013, the Indian Penal Code did not have a separate provision for acid attacks. They were generally dealt with under Sections 320, 322, and 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), which did not reflect the grievous nature and permanent consequences of such violence. The absence of tailored legislation meant light punishments, lengthy trials, and inadequate compensation or care for victims.
Legislative Reforms: A Turn in the Tide
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013 marked a watershed moment in Indian criminal jurisprudence. Following the recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee and widespread public outrage after the Nirbhaya gang rape case, the Act introduced specific provisions to address acid attacks:
- Section 326A IPC criminalizes causing grievous hurt through acid, with punishment ranging from ten years to life imprisonment and a fine that shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the victim.
- Section 326B IPC addresses attempts to throw or administer acid, prescribing a minimum of five years imprisonment, which may extend to seven years, along with a fine.
These provisions not only recognized the heinous nature of the crime but also ensured that fines collected were used directly for the victim’s treatment.
Amendments to Procedural Laws
Corresponding amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Indian Evidence Act were also introduced. Victims of acid attacks are now entitled to compensation under Section 357A CrPC, and state governments are required to formulate victim compensation schemes. Furthermore, the Medical Treatment of Victims of Acid Attack Rules, 2013, made it mandatory for all hospitals to provide free medical treatment, including reconstructive surgery and medicines.
Judicial Interventions: Role of the Courts
Laxmi v. Union of India (2013–2015)
In this landmark Public Interest Litigation, filed by acid attack survivor and activist Laxmi Agarwal, the Supreme Court recognized the legislative void and issued wide-ranging directions. These included:
- Total ban on over-the-counter acid sales unless the buyer presents a photo ID and states the purpose of purchase.
- Prohibition on sales to individuals below 18 years.
- Mandatory licensing of acid dealers and maintenance of sale registers.
- Prompt and free medical care to victims in both government and private hospitals.
- Minimum compensation of ₹3 lakh to victims under state-run victim compensation schemes.
The court’s proactive stance spurred central and state governments to amend laws and introduce procedural safeguards.
Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India (2016)
In another crucial case, the Supreme Court reiterated the need for robust victim rehabilitation mechanisms. It directed states to ensure full and timely disbursal of compensation and emphasized the responsibility of the state to bear all medical, legal, and rehabilitation expenses. The court also reminded states to provide employment opportunities to survivors, particularly in public sector undertakings, as part of social reintegration.
Regulation of Acid Sale: Prevention as the First Line of Defense
Following court directions, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued detailed guidelines to regulate acid sales under the Poison Act, 1919, and the Model Poisons Possession and Sale Rules, 2013. These rules require:
- Acid to be sold only by licensed retailers.
- Purchasers to provide valid ID proof and reason for purchase.
- Mandatory reporting of stock and sale by vendors to local authorities.
- Responsibility of educational institutions, laboratories, and research centers to securely store acid.
Despite these rules, several investigative reports reveal that acid is still available illegally in many states. The lack of stringent enforcement mechanisms and poor surveillance by local authorities undermines the deterrent effect of these provisions.
Challenges in Implementation
Low Conviction Rates and Delays
Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) indicate a poor conviction rate for acid attacks—often below 20%. Many cases drag on for years due to procedural delays, hostile witnesses, or lack of evidence. Further, the burden of proof remains high, and police investigations are often marred by insensitivity or incompetence.
Inadequate Compensation and Support
Although every state is mandated to maintain a victim compensation fund under Section 357A CrPC, reports suggest that most victims either receive inadequate amounts or face bureaucratic hurdles in accessing funds. There is also a lack of dedicated rehabilitation centers offering counseling, reconstructive surgeries, legal aid, and skill-based employment support.
Social Stigma and Psychological Trauma
Survivors of acid attacks often face severe societal exclusion. Many are abandoned by families, denied education or employment opportunities, and suffer chronic mental health issues. The trauma goes beyond physical scars—there is a profound loss of identity and dignity, which laws alone cannot address.
The Role of Civil Society and Survivors
The fight against acid violence has been led by survivors and civil society organizations. Figures like Laxmi Agarwal, Pragya Prasun, and Rupa have not only brought national attention to the issue but also worked to rehabilitate other victims. NGOs like Stop Acid Attacks, Make Love Not Scars, and Atijeevan Foundation offer counseling, vocational training, legal aid, and reconstructive surgeries.
These initiatives have transformed survivors into changemakers, forcing the state to confront its failures and compelling the judiciary to take corrective steps.
Conclusion
Acid attacks on women are not merely acts of individual cruelty but represent societal failures of law enforcement, healthcare, social attitudes, and judicial delivery. Over the past decade, India has taken significant steps to criminalize such violence, regulate acid sale, and compensate victims. Legislative reforms like Sections 326A and 326B IPC and judicial interventions in Laxmi and Parivartan Kendra cases have undoubtedly reshaped the legal landscape.
Yet the gap between law and practice remains wide. Victims still struggle for justice, treatment, and dignity. Laws need to be enforced more stringently, trials must be fast-tracked, compensation must be prompt and adequate, and acid sale must be effectively monitored. Just as importantly, the public must be educated to reject the misogyny and entitlement that underlies such attacks.
India’s response to acid violence will only be complete when survivors are not merely pitied or compensated but respected, empowered, and reintegrated into society with dignity. Only then will the law serve its highest purpose: justice not just in principle, but in practice.
Contributed by Paridhi Bansal ( Intern )