Context
Recently, the Supreme Court of India expanded the definition of “acid attack victims” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, to include survivors who were forcibly administered acid. Previously, the Act’s Schedule narrowly recognized only those disfigured by the “throwing” of acid, thereby excluding victims suffering from severe internal injuries due to ingestion.
Invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed that this inclusion be deemed operative retrospectively from the Act’s inception in 2016 to ensure such survivors can immediately claim disability benefits and identity cards.
1. Expanded Definition of Disability
- The RPwD Act, 2016, replaced the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.
- It increased the number of recognized disabilities from 7 to 21.
- New categories included: Acid attack victims, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy, and blood disorders like Thalassemia, Hemophilia, and Sickle Cell disease.
- The Central Government maintains the power to notify additional categories of specified disabilities.
2. Benchmarking and Reservations
- Benchmark Disability: Defined as a person with at least 40% of a specified disability.
- Employment: Reservation in government vacancies increased from 3% to 4% for persons with benchmark disabilities.
- Education: A reservation of at least 5% is mandated in higher educational institutions.
- Free Education: Every child with a benchmark disability between 6 and 18 years has the right to free education.
3. Recent Supreme Court Clarification (May 2026)
- Internal vs. External Injury: The Court ruled that “disfigurement” must not be limited to external body parts; internal scars and injuries from acid ingestion are now covered.
- Article 142 Usage: The Court used this Article to grant interim relief and provide a “deemed amendment” to the Act’s Schedule while the formal legislative process is underway.
- Retrospective Effect: The benefits for ingestion survivors apply from the very inception of the 2016 Act.
4. Institutional Framework
- UDID Project: The government uses the Unique Disability ID (UDID) card to create a national database and ensure seamless delivery of benefits.
- Advisory Boards: The Act mandates the creation of Central and State Advisory Boards on Disability to serve as apex policy-making bodies.
- Grievance Redressal: Chief Commissioners and State Commissioners act as regulatory bodies and grievance redressal agencies.
Q. With reference to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, and recent judicial developments, consider the following statements:
1. The Act recognizes acid attack victims as a category of disability, originally focusing on those disfigured by the throwing of acid.
2. The Supreme Court recently used Article 142 to include victims of forced acid ingestion within the Act's benefits, effective only from the date of the judgment.
3. The Act mandates a 5% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in government jobs and 4% in higher educational institutions.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
a) 1 only
b) 1 and 2 only
c) 2 and 3 only
d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a)
Solution:
• STATEMENT 1 IS CORRECT: The RPwD Act, 2016, included "acid attack victims" as one of its 21 disability categories, but the statutory language initially focused on external disfigurement from "throwing" acid.
• STATEMENT 2 IS INCORRECT: While the Supreme Court did use Article 142 to include victims of forced ingestion, it ruled that this inclusion is operative retrospectively from the inception of the Act in 2016, not just from the date of the judgment.
• STATEMENT 3 IS INCORRECT: The reservation percentages are reversed; the Act mandates 4% reservation in government jobs and 5% in higher educational institutions.
