Delhi High Court Disappoints Acid Attack Survivors with Decision on Over-the-Counter Acid Sales
The recent decision by the Delhi High Court to dismiss a plea for a total ban on over-the-counter acid sales has left acid attack survivors in the city feeling disappointed. The plea, which was filed in 2020 as a public interest litigation (PIL), highlighted the easy accessibility of acid as a leading cause of acid attacks in the country. Acid attack survivor and activist Shaheen Malik, who filed the PIL, called for comprehensive measures to regulate the availability of acid and urged for a ban on its over-the-counter sale.
In their verdict on July 27, a Bench consisting of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula acknowledged the potential unintended consequences of a blanket ban on acid sales. Instead, they emphasized the need for stricter enforcement of existing regulations. These regulations, established by the Supreme Court in 2013, require establishments selling acids to possess a license and be registered under the Poisons Act. The Supreme Court also stated that shops selling acid must ask customers to disclose the reason for their purchase and provide identification.
While the latest data from the National Crime Records Bureau shows a marginal decline in acid attacks from 2020 to 2021, a 2020 survey conducted by the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) revealed that acid was being illegally sold over the counter in hardware or sanitary shops throughout Delhi. Despite the existence of the Delhi Poisons Possession and Sales Rules, 2015, which regulates the storage and sale of acid, the HRLN survey found that most shops were selling acid without recording the identities of buyers.
Shaheen Malik argues that acid sold at retail outlets is mainly used for domestic tasks such as cleaning toilets and choked sewers, but viable alternatives are available for these tasks. She believes that stricter enforcement alone is not sufficient, citing the increasing number of acid attacks as evidence. Malik, who operates Brave Souls Foundation, an NGO that provides support to acid attack survivors, plans to appeal the verdict.
The disappointment among survivors is palpable. One survivor, Rashmi from Haryana, underwent multiple surgeries costing over ₹6 lakh (approximately $8,000) after an acid attack in 2019. Rashmi expresses her expectations for a more stringent directive from the High Court, but those expectations were not met. Reshma Qureshi, a survivor from Mumbai, emphasizes the need for authorities to recognize the life-altering consequences of acid attacks and to take more resolute action.
In light of this decision, it is important to consider the perspectives of acid attack survivors, who continue to face immense challenges in their recovery. While the Delhi High Court has called for stricter enforcement of existing regulations, the question remains as to whether this will be enough to deter acid attacks and protect vulnerable individuals. The need for comprehensive measures to regulate acid sales and create public awareness about the devastating consequences of acid attacks cannot be ignored.
