Supreme Court gives Centre four weeks to report on acid sale curbs

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, directed the Centre to file a compliance report within four weeks on how acid sales are being regulated across the country, saying that the open availability of acid defeats its earlier orders. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asked for state-wise data on licensed acid vendors, inspections carried out, FIRs registered for illegal sales, and action taken against e-commerce platforms that sell acid. The court said the continuing number of acid attacks showed that the existing guidelines had failed. The case, Shaheen Malik v. Union of India, was filed by an acid attack survivor, and the next hearing is listed for December 3.

Acid attacks cause lifelong disfigurement, blindness and trauma. Acid is cheap and widely used in homes and industry, which makes it easy to obtain. More than a decade ago, the Supreme Court tried to cut off easy access: it ordered that acid be sold only to buyers who show identification and give a reason, that sellers keep records, and that sales to minors be banned. The court's remarks now suggest that, in practice, these rules are widely ignored at shops and online.

The order puts the focus on enforcement data. By asking for numbers on licensed vendors, inspections and FIRs, the court wants to know whether states are actually policing acid sales, not just whether rules exist on paper. Including e-commerce platforms is significant, because online marketplaces can sell acid products across state lines with little checking of who is buying.

The case also highlights a recurring problem in Indian governance: the Centre writes model rules and advisories, but police and licensing are state subjects. The Solicitor General's argument that enforcement lies with the states was met by the court's insistence that the Centre ensure implementation. In earlier hearings, the court had asked the Centre to consider a complete ban on retail sale of acid or much stricter controls, which would require coordinated action across states.

For survivors, the case is personal: the petition was brought by an acid attack survivor, and the earlier hearings examined whether only a full ban on retail sale would make the existing protections real.

Short-term: The Home Ministry will need to collect data from all states and union territories within four weeks, which may itself prompt states to step up inspections before the December 3 hearing.

Long-term: If the report confirms poor enforcement, the court could order tougher measures, including the stricter controls or retail ban it has discussed, and closer regulation of online sales.

Who is affected: Women and girls at risk of acid attacks, survivors seeking justice and rehabilitation, shopkeepers and online platforms that sell acid, state police and licensing authorities, and the Union Home Ministry.

Questions and Answers