Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest Judgement

Shaheen Malik v. Union of India, 2026

Supreme Court of India·4 May 2026
Shaheen Malik v. Union of India, 2026
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

4 May 2026

Judges

Chief Justice Surya Kant & Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner, an acid attack survivor, highlighted a legislative gap in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).

  • The Act defined acid attack victims narrowly as persons disfigured due to acid or corrosive substance attacks.

  • This definition excluded:

    • Victims forced to ingest acid

    • Victims suffering internal injuries without external disfigurement

  • Due to this gap, such victims were denied statutory benefits under the Act.

  • The petitioner sought judicial intervention to correct this limitation.

  • The Union Government informed the Court that a proposal for amendment had already been initiated.

Issues

  1. Whether persons forcibly made to consume acid or suffering internal injuries without external disfigurement fall within the definition of acid attack victims under the RPwD Act, 2016?

  2. Whether the Supreme Court can expand the statutory definition to include such victims using its constitutional powers?

  3. Whether benefits under the RPwD Act can be extended retrospectively from 2016 to cover such victims?

  4. Whether legislative gaps in welfare statutes can be cured through judicial interpretation pending formal amendment?

Held

  • The term acid attack victims under the RPwD Act shall include:

    • Victims forcibly made to ingest acid

    • Victims with internal injuries even without visible disfigurement

  • The expanded definition shall be deemed effective from the inception of the Act (2016).

Analysis

  • The Court adopted a beneficial and purposive interpretation of welfare legislation.

  • It emphasized that the RPwD Act is a social welfare statute and must be interpreted to advance its protective intent.

  • The ruling ensures inclusion of victims previously excluded due to narrow statutory wording.

  • It reflects judicial use of constitutional powers under Article 142 to remedy legislative gaps.

  • The judgment reinforces the principle that disability law must be inclusive and victim-centric.

  • The Court also highlighted systemic concerns:

    • Need for stricter punishment in acid attack cases

    • Possible reversal of burden of proof

    • Regulation of acid sale and seller accountability

    • Potential vicarious liability of sellers

  • It underscores a shift toward stronger victim protection and enhanced deterrence against acid violence.