In a significant pronouncement, the Supreme Court (SC) has asserted that reform-oriented sentencing has no place for convicts in acid attack cases, emphasizing the need for "extraordinary" and deterrent punishment. The apex court underscored that unless the punishment is sufficiently painful for the accused, such heinous offenses are unlikely to cease.
The SC bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Shaheen Malik, an acid attack survivor from Haryana. Malik's petition seeks stronger legal safeguards and improved rehabilitation measures for victims. The court took note of Malik's submission that all accused in her case were acquitted after a prolonged trial, compelling her to challenge the acquittal before the Delhi High Court. Malik, who was 26 at the time of the attack and is now 42, has spent the last 16 years seeking justice. The bench offered her legal aid and the services of senior lawyers of her choice, acknowledging her ordeal.
Expressing concern over delays, inadequate punishment, and systemic failures in delivering justice, the Supreme Court has sought extensive data from all states and Union territories regarding acid attack incidents, prosecution outcomes, and rehabilitation measures for victims. The court has granted four weeks to all states and Union territories to furnish detailed, year-wise data on acid attack cases, including the number of FIRs registered, charge sheets filed, cases pending before trial courts, and appeals before higher courts. Furthermore, the court has requested high courts to consider issuing administrative directions for time-bound disposal of acid attack trials and directed State Legal Services Authorities to submit details of schemes for victim rehabilitation, compensation, and medical aid.
The Supreme Court has urged the central government to consider amending the law to deal more sternly with acid attack crimes, potentially reversing the burden of proof on the accused, similar to the provisions in dowry death cases. The Chief Justice suggested that Parliament consider provisions similar to those governing dowry deaths, where the onus of proving innocence lies on the accused. The bench raised the possibility of attaching the assets of convicts to compensate victims.
Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, representing the Centre, was informed that the issue might require statutory amendments to ensure more stringent punishment and meaningful victim compensation. The CJI questioned why the crime should be part of the general sentencing policy and suggested carving out an exception. The court has asked states and UTs to provide information about the number of cases in which charge sheets are filed in trial courts. The bench also asked them to provide details of the cases where victims are forced to ingest acid.
The Supreme Court's firm stance reflects a growing concern that existing laws and their enforcement have failed to deter acid attacks, which cause unbelievably traumatic pain and suffering. The court's direction towards harsher penalties and emphasis on victim compensation signal a potential shift in the legal approach to these heinous crimes.
