360° UPSC Mains Analysis

The subject of 'relief of the disabled and unemployable' falls under Entry 9 of the State List (List II) of the Seventh Schedule. However, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, was enacted by Parliament under Article 253 to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), demonstrating a cooperative federalism framework where the Center sets the statutory standards and States implement the welfare schemes.

The inclusion of forcible acid ingestion survivors under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, marginally increases public welfare expenditure and social security outlays, but enhances long-term GDP by integrating marginalized individuals into the formal workforce. It reduces the national economic burden of untreated chronic health conditions through state-supported medical rehabilitation. The fiscal impact is minimal but represents a progressive shift toward inclusive growth and human capital development.

The tertiary sector, particularly healthcare and public administration, will see direct impacts. Public healthcare systems will experience structured demand for specialized reconstructive and internal visceral treatments, while the public employment sector must accommodate these survivors under the mandated 4% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities.

Survivors gain access to formal employment opportunities through the 4% horizontal reservation in government establishments under Section 34 of the RPwD Act, 2016. It secures their livelihoods by providing financial assistance, skill development, and a minimum 5% reservation in higher education institutions under Section 32, reducing poverty vulnerability.

Historically, the legal framework in India did not treat acid attacks as a distinct category of crime, classifying them under general provisions of 'grievous hurt' under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The lack of specific penal provisions and rehabilitation mechanisms left survivors without targeted state support or specialized medical care. Over the decades, growing judicial activism and civil society advocacy highlighted the gendered nature of this violence, leading to demands for comprehensive legal and systemic reforms.

Post-independence, the policy response to acid violence evolved slowly. The landmark Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013—primarily driven by the Justice Verma Committee recommendations following the 2012 Delhi gang rape—introduced specific penal provisions for acid attacks under Sections 326A and 326B of the IPC. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) regulated the over-the-counter sale of acid and mandated survivor compensation. This culminated in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, which recognized acid attack victims as disabled, a definition expanded in May 2026 to cover forced ingestion.

The judicial expansion of the RPwD Act to cover internal injuries parallels the Supreme Court's historic expansion of Article 21 (Right to Life) to include the right to health and clean environment. It also mirrors the court's proactive role in the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) case, where it stepped in to fill a legislative vacuum to protect women's fundamental rights.

While acid violence has no direct link to the freedom struggle, the constitutional commitment to substantive equality (Article 14) and gender justice, envisioned by freedom fighters and framers like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, underpins these modern judicial interventions.