The Delhi High Court on Thursday declined to outright outlaw the sale of acid in the city, stating that it may negatively impact companies and those who need it for legitimate reasons. It instructed the Delhi government to rigorously abide by the laws already in place regarding the sale of acid in order to avoid its use for criminal purposes.
The high court ruled that the authorities must act swiftly and forcefully against offenders in situations involving rule violations or the illegal selling of acid. State authorities may have a deterrent impact and promote compliance by imposing sanctions on individuals discovered to be engaged in the unlawful sale or usage of acid, it stated.
The problem needs ongoing attention and aggressive action. Although there is a regulatory framework in place, we think much more needs to be done. The 2015 Delhi Poisons Possession and Sale Rules include clauses that allow the sale of acid to licensed merchants at the authority’s discretion. Only those applicants who can show that they have complied with the requirements are granted the license. The State must implement efficient measures to guarantee that criminals do not get acid, and these rules must be rigorously and sternly implemented. We instruct the Delhi administration to ensure appropriate execution of the current legal framework instead of overturning the 2015 guidelines or ordering a total ban, a bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
An acid attack survivor who is actively involved in helping such victims with aftercare, rehabilitation, legal remedies, and pursuit of compensation filed a petition with the high court asking for a complete ban on the over-the-counter sale of acid at retail establishments across Delhi. The petitioner said that notwithstanding the surge in such horrible crimes brought on by easy and unrestricted access to acid, the fundamental truth remained unaltered.
The petitioner conducted a fact-finding survey within the city by enlisting interns and volunteers, including minors, who were able to obtain acid from almost every area of the national capital, without any difficulty, in order to ascertain the current situation and highlight the “inefficiency” on the part of the Delhi government in limiting and regulating the sale of acid. The high court noted that a complete ban on acid sales might have unforeseen implications, hurting industries where acid is used responsibly and safely, and that it is essential to strike a balance between the needs of the general public and the legal uses of acid for industrial and other regulated reasons.
According to the report, an outright ban might unintentionally harm firms and people who need acid for legal reasons. Acid serves a variety of valid functions and applications across many sectors, it added. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, standing counsel for the Delhi government, and attorney Arun Panwar reassured the court that the state is strictly enforcing the 2015 regulations and called attention to reports from the districts that 50 FIRs had been filed with the Delhi Police between January 1, 2022, and May 20, 2023 against people found to be selling acid illegally.
The court also ordered the government to carry out an extensive empirical investigation to evaluate the probable effects of a total ban on acid sales on diverse groups, people, and organizations. Adopting an evidence-based strategy would allow the State to better comprehend the current policy, the effects of the petitioner’s suggested modifications, and determine how they will affect public safety, industry, and other legal uses of acid, it said.
It claimed that interaction with a range of stakeholders, such as advocacy organizations, business representatives, legal experts, and medical specialists, might provide insightful information. The Delhi government may analyze and identify any holes or weaknesses in the current regulatory structure and take an educated choice based on the outcomes of the empirical research, it added.
The bench gave the petitioner permission to reapply to the court in the event that the rules were not implemented properly and made it plain that its judgment should not be seen as concluding the discussion on the matter. The court acknowledged the petitioner’s efforts and noted that since she had directly suffered the horrific effects of an acid attack, her commitment to helping survivors showed a better awareness of the problem and the consequences of the unfettered sale of acid. Her work as an activist demonstrates her dedication to pursuing justice, recovery, and social support for acid attack survivors.
