Today, the Supreme Court questioned why the assets of people accused in acid attack cases cannot be auctioned to provide proper compensation to survivors.

The court said the current minimum compensation of ₹3 lakh is not enough, as acid attack survivors need lifelong medical treatment and rehabilitation. It stressed that the State must do more to effectively implement compensation schemes.

Calling acid attacks extremely serious crimes, Chief Justice Surya Kant said such offences require very harsh punishment to prevent future attacks.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by Shaheen Malik, a 2009 acid attack survivor and founder of the NGO Brave Souls Foundation.

The Chief Justice also assured that the Supreme Court would ensure she gets the best legal assistance to pursue her case before the High Court.

This assurance came from the Chief Justice after the acid attack survivor told the court that "all accused have been acquitted by a lower court".

The court noted that it had earlier directed the trial court to speed up the hearing, as the case had remained pending for nearly seven years.

Addressing the court, Shaheen Malik said she had spent 16 years fighting for justice.

“I was 26 years old when I was attacked. Now I am 42. I have lost crucial years of my life in this fight, but I still do not know where I stand,” she said.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had sought responses from the Centre and state governments on her PIL, pointing out that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 does not cover acid attack victims who are forced to ingest acid. Under the law, only victims on whom acid is thrown are recognised as persons with disabilities.

The court has also directed all states and Union Territories to submit year-wise data on acid attack cases, including whether chargesheets were filed, how many cases were registered, and how many are still pending. It further sought details of the victims, such as their educational qualifications, marital status, and employment status.

Additionally, the Supreme Court urged the Centre to consider introducing a law similar to the dowry death provisions, where the burden of proof lies on the accused.

The court also recalled its 2013 directions to strictly regulate the sale of acid. It had ordered that acid be sold only to buyers with valid identity cards, that the purpose of purchase be clearly stated, and that all such sales be reported to the police. The court had further ruled that acid must not be sold to anyone below the age of 18.