Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 58

The Supreme Court on May 4 held that survivors of acid attacks, who were forced to consume acid and suffered internal injuries without any visible scarring, will be considered acid attack victims under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said that the clarification would apply retrospectively from the day the Act came into force and also informed the government that existing punishment for acid attack had failed as a deterrent, suggested reversing the burden of proof onto the accused and said acid sellers should be made co-accused in such cases.

The order came in a petition filed by Shaheen Malik, who herself was a survivor and had flagged a gap in law that was leaving out an entire category of victims without access to state support.

The RPwD Act includes acid attack survivors in its list of specified disabilities. But the definition it settled on was narrow. Under Schedule 2(zc) of the Act, an “acid attack victim” is a person “disfigured due to violent assaults by throwing of acid or similar corrosive substance.” Survivors who had acid forcefully ingested fell outside it.

The court noted the problem was that “the use of term “disfigured” appears to confine the scope of external disfigurement of the body, thereby excluding cases involving internal injuries or scarring caused by the administration of acid.” 

The injuries in such cases are equally severe. When acid is ingested, it burns the mouth, throat, oesophagus, and stomach. The damage is quite often permanent. Malik’s petition states that “the corrosive substance causes intense burns and significant harm to the internal organs, particularly the gastrointestinal system. This often results in lifelong medical complications, including the need for ongoing gastroenterological care. Victims of oral acid ingestion may experience long-term issues such as difficulty eating, swallowing, and digestion.”

(Source: Indian Express)

Questions

Q1. Ritika worked at a private company in Mumbai. Her colleague secretly mixed acid in her water bottle during an argument. Ritika survived after treatment but suffered severe internal burns in her throat and stomach. She did not suffer any visible facial or skin disfigurement. When she applied for benefits under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, the authority rejected her claim stating that she had no external disfigurement.

Which of the following is the most legally correct position?

A. Ritika can still be treated as an acid attack victim under the RPwD Act because internal injuries caused by forced acid ingestion are covered.
B. Ritika cannot claim protection because acid attack victims must always show visible scarring.
C. Ritika can claim benefits only if the acid caused permanent facial damage.
D. Ritika will be protected only under criminal law and not under disability law.

Q2. During a ragging incident in a college in Bhopal, Aarav was forced by seniors to drink a corrosive chemical. He survived but developed lifelong digestive complications and difficulty swallowing food. Aarav sought disability-related support under the RPwD Act. The college administration argued that the Act applies only to people whose bodies are visibly disfigured by acid attacks.

What is the correct legal interpretation?

A. Aarav cannot seek protection because the attack did not involve throwing acid on the body.
B. Aarav can be considered an acid attack victim even without visible disfigurement because internal injuries are equally serious.
C. Aarav can seek compensation only after conviction of the accused persons.
D. Aarav is entitled only to medical reimbursement and not disability benefits.

Q3. Nisha was attacked by her former business partner in Jaipur. The accused forcefully poured acid into her mouth. Although there were no major burns on her face, doctors confirmed permanent injury to her food pipe and stomach. Nisha approached authorities seeking recognition as an acid attack survivor under the RPwD Act.

Which principle laid down by the Supreme Court best applies here?

A. Only external injuries caused by acid attacks are legally recognised.
B. Acid attack cases involving ingestion must be dealt with only under criminal law.
C. Victims suffering internal injuries due to forceful acid ingestion are also acid attack survivors under the RPwD Act.
D. Disability protection applies only if the victim becomes permanently bedridden.

Q4. Karan purchased acid from a local shop in Lucknow without any identity verification. He later used it to attack Meera by forcing her to consume the substance. During the hearing, the Supreme Court discussed stricter measures to prevent such crimes.

Which of the following reflects the Court’s observation most accurately?

A. Acid sellers have no responsibility once the sale is completed.
B. Only the main attacker should face criminal liability.
C. Acid attacks should be treated as ordinary assault offences.
D. Acid sellers may also be made co-accused in such cases to strengthen accountability.

Q5. Farhan suffered a forced acid ingestion attack in 2018 in Hyderabad and developed permanent internal injuries. His application for disability benefits was rejected at that time because he had no visible external disfigurement. After the recent Supreme Court ruling, he again approached authorities claiming protection under the RPwD Act.

What is the strongest legal basis supporting Farhan’s claim?

A. The Supreme Court created a completely new category of disability applicable only prospectively.
B. The RPwD Act applies only to attacks occurring after the latest judgment.
C. The clarification recognising victims with internal injuries applies retrospectively from the date the RPwD Act came into force.
D. Only victims with both internal and external injuries can claim benefits retrospectively.

Answers with Explanations

1. Correct Answer: A

The Supreme Court clarified that acid attack victims who suffer internal injuries due to forced acid ingestion are also protected under the RPwD Act, even if there is no visible external disfigurement. The Court recognised that internal burns and lifelong medical complications are equally severe.

2. Correct Answer: B

The Court observed that limiting the definition only to visible disfigurement would unfairly exclude victims suffering serious internal damage. Aarav’s permanent digestive complications and swallowing difficulties make him eligible for recognition as an acid attack survivor under the RPwD Act.

3. Correct Answer: C

The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of “acid attack victim” to include survivors who suffered internal injuries due to forceful ingestion of acid. The absence of external scars does not remove the victim from the protection of the RPwD Act.

4. Correct Answer: D

The Supreme Court noted that existing punishments had failed to deter acid attacks and suggested stricter accountability measures. One such suggestion was to make acid sellers co-accused in appropriate cases to ensure responsible sale and regulation of corrosive substances.

5. Correct Answer: C

The Court specifically stated that its clarification would apply retrospectively from the date the RPwD Act came into force. Therefore, victims whose claims were earlier denied due to absence of visible disfigurement may seek recognition and benefits under the revised interpretation.