The Supreme Court of India has made a landmark departure from two fundamental principles of criminal justice in cases involving acid attacks. On Monday, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ruled that once a survivor names the accused, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to establish innocence. Additionally, the court mandated that convicted individuals must face the harshest possible punishment under the law.
Reversal of Core Criminal Justice Principles
Traditionally, the Indian criminal justice system has upheld two key tenets: the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the punishment system focuses on rehabilitation. However, the Supreme Court observed a disturbing increase in acid attack cases, attributing it largely to inadequate penalties. The bench stated, "The only way to deter people from attacking with acid and corrosive substances is to award the harshest punishment and reverse the burden of proof. Onus must shift to the accused, once he is named by the survivor."
Property Attachment and Compensation
Chief Justice Surya Kant suggested that authorities should consider attaching and auctioning the assets of convicted individuals to provide financial support for the treatment and rehabilitation of survivors. He emphasized that attaching the property of parents could serve as a deterrent, sending a strong message to families to monitor the behavior of their children. The court also directed that survivors who are forced to ingest acid, resulting in internal injuries, should be entitled to benefits under the Rights of People with Disabilities Act.
Stricter Regulation of Acid Sales
The court expressed concern over the easy availability of acid, noting that it is often sold over the counter without adequate restrictions. Petitioner and survivor Shaheen Malik highlighted that acid continues to be accessible, making it simple for offenders to procure. Amicus curiae Mukul Rohatgi remarked that acid worth just Rs 50 can ruin a girl's life and disfigure her permanently, underscoring the need for stricter controls. The bench directed that sellers of acid should be made co-accused in such cases, holding them accountable for their role in enabling these crimes.
Government Action Required
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed with the amicus curiae's submissions and stated that the schedule of the Rights of People with Disabilities Act needs amendment to include victims of acid attacks who suffer internal injuries. He assured the court that he would urge the government to take early action on this matter. The Supreme Court's directives aim to create a robust legal framework to combat acid attacks and ensure justice for survivors.
This ruling marks a significant shift in the legal approach to acid attack cases, prioritizing survivor protection and deterrence over traditional legal doctrines.
