Shaheen Malik v. UoI: Acid Attack Policy and Acid Sale

Acid Attack Survivors: Supreme Court Asks Centre to Examine Policy Framework, Seeks Affidavit on Open-Market Acid Sale

Shaheen Malik v. Union of India & Anr. Decided 27 October 2026

Published: 13 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In Shaheen Malik v. Union of India & Anr., the Supreme Court permitted NAVYA Centre for Justice and Social Change to assist it as an intervener and requested that the ‘Comprehensive Survivor-Centric Policy Framework’ be examined at the level of the Government of India ‘with a view to formulating a pan-India policy’, after stakeholder suggestions (paras 3-5). NALSA is to consider the framework, and an affidavit is due on why the sale of acid in the open market continues to be permitted (paras 6, 10).

Key holdings

NAVYA may assist the Court as an intervener, raising no independent or adversarial claim (para 3).

The policy framework is to be examined by the Government of India with a view to a pan-India policy, after stakeholder suggestions (para 5).

NALSA is to consider the framework with reference to its pre-notified schemes (para 6).

Under its order of 09.10.2026, the hospital authorities must consider the request of the victim and her family for a private room; the accused is in custody (para 8).

An affidavit on why the open-market sale of acid continues to be permitted is due before 23.11.2026 (para 10).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1112 of 2025 was brought by Shaheen Malik against the Union of India and another. The order shows that the proceedings deal with acid attack survivors and with the prohibition or regulation of the sale of acid (paras 2, 10). On 14.07.2026 the Court had allowed a foundation to intervene and to submit a proposal on actions that may require judicial intervention (para 4). I.A. No. 263852/2026 was moved by NAVYA Centre for Justice and Social Change, a non-profit organisation based at Mohali, Punjab, through its founder, who is stated to have over 14 years of experience in research and advocacy concerning acid attack survivors and co-founded that foundation (paras 1-2).

Court's Findings

The applicant stated that it raises no independent or adversarial claim, does not seek to enlarge the scope of the proceedings and seeks only to place field-based inputs before the Court; ‘In this view of the matter’, the Court allowed the application, permitted NAVYA to assist it as an intervener and allowed I.A. No. 319466/2026 for additional documents (para 3). The intervener's policy framework, dated 30.08.2026, was prepared under the liberty given to the foundation on 14.07.2026 (para 4). The Additional Solicitor General, handed a copy, is requested to have it examined at the level of the Government of India, and the Union of India ‘shall invite suggestions from all stakeholders’ before taking a policy decision (para 5). The intervener must also submit the framework to the Member Secretary, NALSA, which is to consider it with reference to its pre-notified schemes and act as appropriate with its Executive Chairman's approval (para 6); a copy also goes to the Amicus Curiae (para 7). The order neither approves the framework nor decides anything on the sale of acid.

Legal Principle

It lays down no rule of law, but shows the Court admitting an organisation as an intervener where it raises no independent or adversarial claim, does not seek to enlarge the scope of the proceedings and offers only field-based inputs (para 3), and routing its proposal to the Government of India and NALSA rather than adopting it (paras 5-6).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For an organisation seeking to assist the Court in such proceedings, para 3 shows what weighed with the Court: the applicant disclaimed any independent or adversarial claim, did not seek to enlarge the scope of the proceedings and offered only field-based inputs. The Court did not adopt the intervener's framework; it sent it to the Government of India for examination with a view to a pan-India policy after inviting stakeholder suggestions, and to NALSA for consideration against its pre-notified schemes (paras 5-6). The next step is the affidavit on the sale of acid in the open market, due before the hearing on 23.11.2026 (para 10).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.