Acid That Devours Justice: Shaheen Malik and the Fight to Recognize Survivors of Forced Ingestion

Invisible burns, lives shattered

The case of Shaheen Malik exposes a brutal reality: acid attacks are not always externally visible, yet they devastate lives in equally catastrophic ways. Malik, who survived an acid attack in 2009, has endured 25 surgeries, lost sight in her left eye, and waged a sixteen-year legal campaign to secure convictions against those who destroyed her life. Concurrently, she has become an outspoken advocate for cases that remain largely invisible to India’s legal framework — people whose esophagi and internal organs were corroded after being forced to swallow corrosive substances.

A legal blind spot that excludes internal suffering

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (2016) in India provides protections for individuals disfigured by the "throwing of acid or similar substances." Yet that phrasing omits forced ingestion entirely. Severe internal injuries, oesophageal reconstructions, the lifelong inability to swallow, breathe or eat normally — these consequences fall outside the statutory definition that triggers entitlement to compensation, medical rehabilitation and social support. Malik challenged this omission before the Supreme Court, arguing that survivors like Ruman — reportedly forced to drink acid by her husband and now weighing only 21 kg — are effectively excluded from benefits that could be life-saving.

Statistics that contradict stated priorities

Data indicate a worrying upward trend: the National Crime Records Bureau recorded 176 acid attack cases in 2021, 202 in 2022 and 207 in 2023, figures cited in the BBC’s investigation. Meanwhile, the judicial system consumes victims’ time and patience. Reports spanning 2017–2021 show that out of some 600 cases in court, only a handful were resolved within a year; in 2023, from 703 pending matters, just 43 were disposed of, with 16 convictions. These figures point to two systemic policy failures: an increase in brutal assaults not matched by effective prevention measures, and a judicial apparatus that does not deliver timely remedies, leaving survivors trapped in legal and financial limbo.

Hospitals closing their doors: enforcement deficits in healthcare

The law mandates that public and private hospitals provide free treatment to survivors, including reconstructive surgery. The reality, as Malik and the Brave Souls Foundation document, diverges sharply: survivors face denials of admission absent court orders, delays that endanger lives, and interruptions to care on bureaucratic or financial grounds. Those barriers render legal entitlements illusory. That medical facilities can postpone or deny treatment underscores the absence of clear sanctions and oversight mechanisms to compel compliance with statutory obligations.

Regulating corrosives: promises without teeth

Existing legislation restricts the open sale of corrosive substances, yet access remains widespread. Informal markets and uncontrolled supply chains keep acids readily available to perpetrators. This is less a failure of statute than a failure of enforcement: effective inspections, sales traceability, penalties for vendors and demand-reduction programmes are weak, inconsistent or absent. Without a coordinated regulatory architecture, statutory restrictions achieve little practical reduction in access.

Community, shelter and social stigma

Brave Souls Foundation provides essential shelter: roughly fifty survivors receive support at its Jangpura facility in Delhi. For many, that home is the only refuge from familial and social ostracism. Stigma also affects access to housing — Malik recounts being forced to relocate the foundation’s office and landlords refusing to rent out of fear of "bad luck" or aesthetic aversion. Such isolation deepens trauma, constrains economic reintegration and turns survival into a perpetual dependence on donor-funded charity rather than sustainable autonomy.

“For survivors who have been forced to ingest acid, the disfigurement is internal and therefore not as visible. But their lives are agonising: they struggle to breathe, speak and swallow despite multiple surgeries.” — Shaheen Malik

What the Supreme Court has asked for and what remains to be done

The Supreme Court of India has responded with measures that could be consequential. It has requested annual reports from states detailing acid attack incidents, case disposals and rehabilitation schemes; it has sought specific information regarding survivors of forced ingestion; and it has proposed extraordinary punitive mechanisms — including the seizure of perpetrators’ assets to compensate victims and potential legislative reforms such as reversing the burden of proof. These judicial signals are promising but must be matched by operational instruments: dedicated funding, fast-track tribunals with strict timelines, administrative levers to enforce hospital obligations and coordinated preventive policies.

Realistic prospects for reform

Amending statutory language to include internal injuries may seem technical, but it is pivotal. A broadened legal definition activates rights, channels resources and dismantles bureaucratic barriers to compensation and rehabilitation. Yet statutory change without implementation will not alter the lived reality for Ruman or for women who now weigh less than a child. Repair must be multidimensional — legal, medical, economic and social — and pursued in parallel if it is to be effective.

Priority actions to convert rulings into rights

Urgent and practicable recommendations are clear: revise the law to encompass forced ingestion; establish clear protocols and penalties for hospitals that refuse or delay treatment; create a national compensation fund financed in part through the confiscation of offenders’ assets; enforce strict monitoring of corrosive sales with traceability and sanctions; set up specialised, expedited courts for extreme violence with enforceable deadlines; and run sustained anti-stigma campaigns alongside survivor-led economic reintegration programmes. Empowering survivors as coordinators and leaders within reintegration efforts would strengthen legitimacy and maximize impact.

Justice, medicine and society: an interdependent response

The central lesson of Malik’s case is that criminal justice alone cannot resolve a problem that is simultaneously medical and social. Survivors of forced ingestion require complex medical interventions, long-term psychological care, economic security and formal legal recognition to reclaim dignity. Without an integrated approach that aligns courts, hospitals and social policy, responses will remain fragmented and inadequate.

The Warhial Perspective

Policy must be reframed around three core principles: recognition of invisible injuries in law, immediate healthcare accountability and conversion of punitive measures into meaningful reparation. Shaheen Malik embodies a dual struggle — to convict perpetrators and to overhaul the legal and administrative frameworks so that surviving becomes synonymous with reintegration. If India translates the Supreme Court’s recommendations into concrete implementation and enacts the urgent measures proposed, the country could see a reduction in attacks and improved prospects for survivor recovery. Absent decisive action, the state will continue to produce marginalised survivors who, though alive, are deprived of dignity, adequate treatment and effective justice. Warhial anticipates that the next two years will be decisive: either legislation is promptly expanded and enforced, or the familiar string of promises will persist while victim counts rise and conviction rates remain largely symbolic.