Why acid attack survivors face a long wait for justice

“I waited for 16 years, but the accused were still acquitted,” Shaheen Malik told the Supreme Court on January 27.

Malik’s life was irreversibly altered in 2009 when acid was thrown on her outside her workplace in Panipat, Haryana. She has said the attack stemmed from insecurity among colleagues who felt threatened by her confidence and ability. The assault left her face severely disfigured and caused permanent damage to her eyesight.

Over the years, Malik has undergone 25 reconstructive surgeries. Yet, more than a decade and a half later, her struggle for justice remains unfinished. In December, a Delhi court acquitted three men and one woman for “lack of evidence”. Malik’s immediate supervisor and his wife were among the accused.

Malik has challenged the acquittal before the Delhi High Court, where the matter is pending. She has also approached the Supreme Court through a public interest litigation, seeking justice in her case as well as rehabilitation and broader systemic reforms for acid attack survivors across India.

When Malik placed her ordeal before the Supreme Court on January 27, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that those found guilty of acid attacks must face “extraordinarily painful punishment” to send a clear message of deterrence. The top court also said years-long delays in acid attack trials were “shameful” and sought reports from High Courts on pending cases.

However, for many acid attack survivors, such strong judicial observations ring hollow. Their own cases have been stalled in courts for years, with trials often dragging on for a decade or more. Compensation claims remain pending before state authorities, and interim relief, meant to provide immediate support, frequently remains tied to the uncertain outcome of criminal proceedings.

Legal reforms

In 2013, the Supreme Court held that the unrestricted sale of acid, lack of adequate medical care, and absence of a compensation framework violated the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court issued a series of directions, which included strict regulation of acid sales, free medical treatment for survivors in public and private hospitals, and a minimum compensation of Rs 3 lakh.

These concerns were echoed by the Justice Verma Committee in 2013, which recognised acid attacks as a gendered form of violence requiring specific legal intervention. This led to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, introducing Sections 326A and 326B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 357B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, mandating stricter punishment and compensation for gender-based crimes.

These provisions have largely been retained under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as Sections 124(1) and 124(2). Causing acid injury now attracts a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment, extendable to life, while an attempt to throw acid carries a minimum sentence of five years, along with fines.

But despite more than a decade of legal reforms, acid attack survivors continue to face prolonged trials and, in many cases, acquittals that push them into further legal battles.

Case ‘sabotaged’

Malik’s lawyer Shahjar said the problems began on the very first day after she was attacked. “From the moment the FIR was filed, the investigation was not conducted properly,” she said.

Shahjar highlighted two major lapses. The superintendent of police had collected the bag Malik was carrying on the day of the attack, but it was never sent for forensic examination. Similarly, the glass containers used to throw the acid on Malik were recovered from the crime scene, but were not sent for forensic tests either.

The police later filed an “untraceable report” for Malik, effectively closing the case. Shahjar said this may have been done since the accused were from a family with influence in the area where Malik was attacked.

It was only when Malik approached the Delhi State Legal Services Authority seeking compensation that Chief Judicial Magistrate Parminder Kaur, also the secretary of the legal aid cell, recorded that Malik was easily traceable at the same address mentioned in the FIR.

The case was eventually reopened in 2013. Shahjar said that during this period, the judge recording Malik’s “statement was intimidated by the accused”. She said that someone from the Bar Association had “barged into the judge’s chamber and threatened her for recording Malik’s statement”, forcing the judge to call her gunman for protection. During the trial in Malik’s case, the judge deposed on oath that she had been intimidated.

Even beyond investigative failures, Shahjar raised concerns about the trial court’s approach. “Several statements made by Shaheen were altered by the judge in the order, which clearly suggests that her testimony was misrepresented,” she said. The misrepresentation of Malik’s statements is one of the grounds on which the acquittals have been challenged in the Delhi High Court.

A 2009 acid attack case from Delhi follows a similar trajectory. Two sisters were attacked while returning home from work, leaving them permanently blind and severely disfigured. The victims alleged that the “attackers were known to them and acted out of personal enmity”. Two men, in their late 30s, were accused of attacking the sisters.

In 2012, the trial court acquitted both. The state and the victims challenged the acquittal before the Delhi High Court. In 2024, the High Court held that “convictions cannot rest on sympathy or moral outrage alone”. Pointing to “contradictory testimonies, delayed identification, poor lighting conditions, weak investigation, absence of independent witnesses, and lack of proven motive”, the court refused to overturn the acquittal.

Advocate Sija Nair, who practices in New Delhi and represents acid attack survivors, said the acquittal was challenged because one of the victims had fully identified the accused despite having been rendered blind. “She had given the description of the person, but still, that was not enough,” she said.

“No survivor who has lost her eyesight would falsely implicate someone,” Malik added, emphasising that survivor testimony must be treated with seriousness. Insensitivity persists in the judiciary, said Malik.

Nair pointed out the Supreme Court, while hearing Malik’s plea, had drawn a comparison with dowry deaths and said the burden of proving innocence in acid attack cases should fall on the accused. “Think of some legislative intervention. This is not less serious than dowry death,” Chief Justice Surya Kant had observed.

For now, two sisters have appealed against the acquittal before the Supreme Court.

Malik pointed out that apart from a long struggle for justice, acid attack survivors also face delays in receiving their rightful compensation from the state government through the legal aid authority – the National Legal Services Authority, NALSA.

Malik’s compensation was paid after the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the State to release it. “I finally got it in 2018, after nine years,” said Malik.

Malik, who later founded the Brave Souls Foundation to support acid attack survivors, said that since 2021, the organisation has assisted several victims with legal proceedings, rehabilitation and seeking compensation.

‘Overburdened courts, faulty investigation’

Lawyers who have frequently appeared for acid attack victims and survivors say their cases also suffer because of the systemic weaknesses of India’s criminal justice system. “Shoddy” and “careless” police work also hampers the final outcome of acid attack cases, they said.

Advocate Madiah Shahjar said the police are responsible for collecting the evidence. “Our work depends on the groundwork they do,” she said. “Nothing should be kept back.”

Advocate on Record Anuj Kapoor, who practices at the Supreme Court of India, said that it is not uncommon for the police to “deliberately conduct a shoddy investigation”. “They will catch the right people so that everybody is satisfied,” he said, then carry out a “faulty investigation so that ultimately those people are acquitted”. Nobody can blame the police for not catching the culprits, but they deliberately prepare a weak chargesheet, said Kapoor. “They are influenced.”

Kapoor said India’s criminal justice system “is far from perfect, and it can be manipulated by the stronger party”. “Sometimes it can be the accused, and sometimes it can be the complainants.” he said.

“Sometimes, when the police act promptly, they do collect all the evidence,” said Nair. “But in some cases, the accused are so influential that whatever is collected is not deposited in the malkhana.” The malkhana is a room attached to the police stations where evidence is stored.

Nair also pointed out that courts are “overburdened and suffer from high pendency”.

Shahjar said the judiciary’s lenient approach contributes to prolonged delays. “Hearings are often delayed because one of the parties is absent, leading to the matter being relisted months later,” she added.

“If the court wants to show how seriously it is treating the case, it can take simple but effective steps,” said Shahjar. “For instance, if an accused is delaying the proceedings or not cooperating for even two days, the court can impose costs on them.”

Malik said her PIL has helped highlight these issues and could make some difference to the lives of acid attack survivors by speeding up trials and ensuring better rehabilitation policies. “I am very hopeful,” she said.