The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Union Government over the effectiveness of its guidelines to prevent acid attacks, observing that the continued occurrence of such incidents warranted a review of the existing framework. The Court sought data on acid attack cases to assess whether incidents had increased.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing the matter concerning measures for the protection and rehabilitation of acid attack survivors and regulation of acid sales.

During the hearing, the Bench expressed concern that the guidelines issued by the Centre had not achieved their intended purpose and that responsibility could not simply be passed on to the States without ensuring effective implementation.

Additional Solicitor General Archana Dave for the Union Government submitted that the Court that revised guidelines had been circulated to the States, but said that implementation remained a concern. The Bench stressed that the Centre and the States would have to work together to address loopholes and examine accountability for continued incidents. On this, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant remarked:

The Court also questioned the continued availability of acid in the open market, particularly for domestic use, and asked the Centre to examine whether its over-the-counter sale could be prohibited or subjected to stricter regulation.

The Bench observed that several domestic uses of acid could now be served by readily available and inexpensive alternatives. It suggested that the authorities identify the purposes for which acid remained indispensable and assess whether its sale could be restricted to designated institutions or other regulated channels.

The Court indicated that, if acid had to remain available for specific purposes, a stringent regulatory framework could be considered, including maintaining proper records of purchasers and preventing its unrestricted sale in the private market.

The proceedings also concerned the treatment of an acid attack survivor who was undergoing treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi. The Court noted the submissions that the accused had been arrested and was in judicial custody. Counsel appearing for the victim’s family requested that she be shifted to a private room so that her mother, who was attending to her, could stay with her during the prolonged treatment. The Court asked the hospital authorities to consider the request, taking into account the severity of the victim’s burn injuries and the need for continued medical care.

The Bench also considered proposals for a comprehensive survivor-centric policy framework and standard operating procedures for acid attack cases. An NGO working with acid attack survivors submitted to the Court that it had submitted proposals concerning rehabilitation, immediate first aid and measures that could be incorporated into the response to such attacks.

The Court asked the organisation to submit its proposed framework to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), which was expected to examine it and consider suggestions from stakeholders, including survivors and organisations working in the field.

The Bench also took up the delay in finalising the revised assessment guidelines for disability certificates for acid attack survivors. On May 4, 2026, the Supreme Court had expanded the definition of “acid attack victims” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, to include persons who had acid administered to them and those who suffered internal injuries without external disfigurement, directing the Centre to formally notify the amendment.

While the statutory amendment was notified in May, the revised assessment guidelines required to operationalise the disability benefits for such survivors are yet to be finalised. The petitioner’s counsel flagged the delay, following which Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave submitted that the revised guidelines were in the final stages and indicated that they would be finalised within three months. The Bench observed that the assurance should be reflected in its order rather than remain merely an oral commitment.

The Bench also sought data on whether acid attack incidents had increased over time and asked the NGO intervenors to provide relevant information. The NGO submitted that NRCB data reflected the trend in such cases. To this, the Chief Justice remarked, “That will speak about how your policy has miserably failed. If it is increasing, that means the failure of the policy.”

The matter is posted for November 23, 2026.