INTRODUCTION
India’s Supreme Court has expressed its frustration towards the administrative system due to the constantly increasing acid attacks and remarked that the rules that have been designed to control the illegal sale of corrosive agents have failed to deliver. On October 27, 2026, the Supreme Court stated that notwithstanding stringent orders issued by the court to ban the sale of acid in retail markets, it still continues to be available in the marketplace as well as over the internet. This is indeed a failure in terms of the implementation of policy and laws, and recognising this fact, the Supreme Court has directed the Indian Government to immediately reexamine the regulatory framework and instil accountability among its executive officers while making sure that the victims are adequately rehabilitated.
BACKGROUND
In India, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427 (2013 and 2015) has always been the basis for regulating acid sales. The Supreme Court has ordered the following strict provisions for retailing acids under the Poisons Act, 1919, which include requiring a government-issued photo ID, providing proof of address, stating the reason for purchasing acid, and a complete prohibition on selling to people under the age of 18.
However, after filing the writ petition of Shaheen Malik v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1112 of 2025, it pointed out another major fact. It brought to the court’s notice that parliamentary directives were being violated. The petitioners also argued that the victims of acid attacks suffer due to the scars of incidents and delays in recovering the monetary compensation from the government. Still, they are used to the unavailability of pain-free, specialised treatment under Section 397 of the BNSS and earlier Supreme Court orders.
KEY POINTS
- A Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, pointed out that the increase in acid attacks reveals a lapse in policy implementation and disfavour towards the rule of law.
- The bench directed the Centre to file a detailed affidavit in 4 weeks regarding the current implementation of the guidelines issued in 2013.
- The Centre was instructed to submit state-wise details, including the information regarding the licensed sellers of acids along with the inspections done by the SDMs and the FIRs filed against illegal over-the-counter sales.
- The bench was interested in keeping note of the accountability regarding the unregulated e-commerce platforms, questioning the actions taken by the government to check the anonymous sale of acids.
- The bench required detailed information about the timely payment of compensation to the victims, providing cost-free reconstructive surgery, medical treatment, and reintegrating the victims into employment and education.
- The Solicitor General affirms to the bench that the Union Government will definitely think about getting new, stricter guidelines formulated with the provision for more severe punishments for illegal selling and violation of law.
ANALYSIS
From a constitutional and legal point of view, the Supreme Court’s remarks show deep judicial frustration with the continuing lack of executive action. The hearing reveals the serious inadequacies of cooperative federalism when the central guidelines are met with indifference on the part of state regulatory machinery. The judiciary is clearly moving from just guidelines towards strict executive accountability as it asks for specific data on FIRs, magistrate inspections, and e-commerce compliance.
The Court also emphatically reiterated that the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the complete rehabilitation of victims. This interpretation does not just include punishing wrongdoers but gives the State a mandatory affirmative duty of providing medical, financial, and social rehabilitation for victims. The reference to e-commerce accountability is interesting, proving that the present regulatory framework needs to adapt to the reality of the digital marketplace where age and ID checking are very easy to overcome. If the Centre drafts the promised stringent guidelines, it may serve as a timely start for the much-needed reform of India’s toxic substance control mechanism.
CONCLUSION
The latest order from the Supreme Court acts as an essential and immediate warning to the central and state governments. The uncontrolled and unregulated distribution of acid continues to pose a serious threat to the general populace, more so as it is clear that only issuing administrative directives can be viewed as insufficient. The top court has reinforced its commitment by insisting on compliance reports and indicating tougher regulation of vendors. Accordingly, the matter, which is scheduled for a hearing on 3rd December 2026, could bring about a much-needed change in the way India treats corrosive substances.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: SWETHA DUTTA
