Amended RPwD Act to include persons internally injured by acid ingestion, Centre tells Supreme Court

The recent amendment to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 marks a significant milestone in India's disability rights jurisprudence. The Centre's submission before the Supreme Court acknowledging the inclusion of victims of forcible acid ingestion — as distinct from acid-throwing victims — reflects an evolving understanding of disability that goes beyond visible physical impairment to recognize internal bodily harm. This development did not emerge in isolation; it builds upon decades of judicial activism and legislative reform aimed at fulfilling the constitutional promise of equality and dignity under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The original RPwD Act, 2016, which replaced the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, was enacted to give effect to India's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), ratified by India in 2007. The 2016 Act expanded the list of recognized disabilities from 7 to 21, including acid attack victims under the category of 'physical disability.' However, the initial interpretation limited recognition to those suffering external injuries from acid throwing — a heinous crime often rooted in gender-based violence, rejected advances, or property disputes. Victims of forcible acid ingestion, who suffer catastrophic internal damage to the esophagus, stomach, and respiratory tract, were excluded despite enduring equally debilitating, lifelong consequences. This gap was highlighted through public interest litigation and advocacy by disability rights organizations and acid attack survivor collectives such as the Acid Survivors Foundation India and Stop Acid Attacks. The Supreme Court, in its role as guardian of fundamental rights, has consistently expanded the scope of social welfare legislation. In landmark judgments like *Laxmi v. Union of India* (2015), the Court directed regulation of acid sales and compensation for victims, but the statutory definition under RPwD Act remained narrow. The current amendment, with retrospective effect, rectifies this legislative oversight and ensures that past victims — many of whom have struggled for years without certification, pension, reservation in education and employment, or access to rehabilitation — can now claim their rightful entitlements. The stakeholders involved are multifaceted: the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (nodal ministry for RPwD Act), the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD), state governments responsible for implementation, medical boards certifying disability, and most importantly, the survivors themselves. The retrospective application is particularly crucial because many victims of forcible ingestion were assaulted years ago, often in domestic or custodial settings, and were denied disability certificates due to the absence of visible facial disfigurement. Constitutionally, this amendment strengthens the Directive Principles of State Policy, especially Article 38 (secure a social order for promotion of welfare), Article 41 (right to work, education, public assistance in cases of disablement), and Article 46 (promotion of educational and economic interests of weaker sections). It also aligns with the Supreme Court's interpretation in *Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India* (2016) and *Vikash Kumar v. UPSC* (2021), where the Court emphasized purposive construction of disability law to include invisible and non-apparent disabilities. From a governance perspective, this move signals a shift toward inclusive policy-making that responds to lived realities rather than rigid categorizations. It also has implications for the criminal justice system — forcible acid ingestion may now be more effectively prosecuted under amended provisions of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 326A, 326B) and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, with disability certification enabling victim compensation under Section 357A CrPC. Looking ahead, the challenge lies in implementation: sensitizing medical boards to certify internal injuries, updating state-level disability databases, ensuring timely disbursement of pensions, and extending reservation benefits in government jobs and educational institutions. The amendment also opens the door for recognizing other forms of invisible disability — such as chronic illness, neurological conditions, and mental health impairments — under the RPwD framework. For aspirants, this case exemplifies the dynamic interplay between legislative amendment, judicial intervention, and executive action in advancing social justice — a core theme in Indian polity, governance, and social issues.