Acid attack survivors with internal injuries to get RPwD benefits: Centre to SC

THe Centre told the sublime margaret court on tues that battery-acid assail survivors who suffer internal injuries due to forcible ingestion of the corrosive substance will now be entitled for benefits under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016 (RPwD), following a recent amendment that recognises “internal” disfigurement as well.The step taken by the Centre followed a judgment by the top court on May 4 which directed that persons forced to ingest acid will be entitled to benefits meant for disabled persons till such time a formal amendment is carried out in the act.On Tuesday, solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for Centre produced a copy of a May 22 notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment that brought all acid attack victims, regardless of internal or external injuries, at par under the RPwD act.Noting the development, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said, “Since the above amendment is clarificatory in nature, it shall be deemed to be in existence since the time when the 2016 Act came into existence.”The order came in a public interest litigation filed by one Shaheen Malik, an acid attack survivor, who brought out the plight of victims who are forced to drink acid and suffer permanent damage to internal organs for which they undergo life-long treatment. However, since the RPwD act considered only outward disfigurement, such persons failed to get benefits under the disability law.During the earlier hearing, the Centre informed the court that the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities is conscious of this problem and advised change in law.Senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, who represented Malik, flagged court’s attention to related issues of issuance of disability certificate. He pointed out that while certificates are issued based on benchmark disabilities, quantifying the percentage of such disability, no such criteria is available to quantify the internal damage and the same should be formulated by the Centre.Mehta said, “The exercise is going on as we are in the process of framing guidelines.” The other lawyers appearing in the case said that that in this matter, the court had also flagged concerns of delayed trial, compensation to victims, and easy procurement of acid across the counter which emboldens the accused and prolongs suffering to the victims.The court agreed to consider these issues when the matter is heard next.The PIL filed by Malik brought out the legal dichotomy as section 326B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is now replaced by section 124(2) of BNS, specifically penalises the act of forcibly administering acid or attempting to administer acid with a minimum sentence of five years that can extend to 7 years. However, the same is not reflected in the RPwD Act.Simultaneously, the victim pointed out that the quantum of sentences serves hardly as a deterrent for carrying out this offence which leaves victims with a permanent scar. The court had in the past observed that the Centre could explore attaching the assets of the accused, a share of which can be given to the victims who have to undertake costly reconstructive surgeries. At the same time, the bench had opined that to curb the easy availability of acid, the traders who sell these products should be made vicariously liable and made to face trial. However, there is no response yet by the Centre on these proposals.