SHAHEEN MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P.(C) No.-001112-001112 - 2025

Advocates

ANUJ KAPOOR
AVIJIT MANI TRIPATHI

Judges

Justice Joymalya Bagchi

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

SHAHEEN MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA

ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL-W

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1112/2025 SHAHEEN MALIK Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 27-01-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Sija Nair, Adv. Mr. Anuj Kapoor, AOR

Mr. Shivom Sethi, Adv.

Mr. Nandeesh Nanda, Adv.

Mr. Arnav Abhishek, Adv.

Mr. Kishan Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Madiah Shahjar, Adv.

Ms. Huda Naaz, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Vaibhav Dwivedi, Adv.

Mr. Kamal Digpaul, Adv.

Ms. Mili Baxi, Adv.

Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv.

Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv.

Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv.

Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR

Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR

Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.

Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR

Mr. Ravi Raghunath, AOR

Ms. Nishtha Jindal, Adv.

Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, AOR

Ms. Aagam Kaur, Adv.

Ms. Kashish Jain, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Garg, Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Ms. Grahita Agarwal, Adv. Mr. B. Yeshwanth Raj, Adv. Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Robin Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Shweta Jayshankar Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Smriti Singh, Adv.

Ms. Abha Sharma, AOR

Mr. Anupam Maurya, Adv.

Mr. Praneet Das, Adv.

Mr. Avneesh Arputham, AOR Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Adv. Mr. P. Venkatraju, Adv.

Ms. G. Sushmita, Adv.

Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Mr. Karthik S.D., AOR Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Disha Singh, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv.

Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR Mr. B. Dhanajay, Adv.

Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Ms. Ishika Gupta, Adv. Mr. Eashwar, Adv. Ms. Richa Verma, Adv. Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR

Ms. Anubha Agrawal, AOR Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Pavan Kumar, AOR Mr. Akhlesh Kumar Soni, Adv. Mr. Neelam, Adv.

Mr. Pushkar Anand, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Ratra, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Ms. Neeti Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Anuradha Arputham, AOR Mr. Mridul Gupta, Adv. Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR Mr. Kartik Lahoti, Adv. Mr. Adith Menon, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Soni, Adv. Ms. Shubheksha Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv. Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Vinayakam Gupta, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Vandana Sehgal, AOR Mr. Mohit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Manan Verma, AOR Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Tandon, Adv. Ms. Mansi Diwakar, Adv. Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Ms. P S Chandralekha, Adv. Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR Ms. Pritama, Adv.

Ms. Shaivani Gupta, Adv. Ms. Bipin Vinayak Chandan, Adv. Mr. Sufyan Hasan, Adv. Ms. Hema Malik, Adv.

Ms. Nidhi Mittal, AOR

Ms. Jaya Choudhury, Adv.

Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Dilip Kumar Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Rajit Lal Moitra, Adv. Mr. Arindam Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Oindrila Das, Adv. Mr. Debomoy Roy, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.K. Nayar, Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhalak, AOR Mr. Tushar Gir, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv.

Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Pursuant to the order dated 04.12.2025, around 17 High Courts have sent the details of pending cases concerning 'Acid Attacks'. It appears that the maximum number of cases, i.e., 198 cases are pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh, followed by 160 pending cases in West Bengal, 114 pending cases in Gujarat, 68 pending cases in Bihar, and 58 pending cases in Maharashtra.

2. Except for the 17 High Courts mentioned in the Office Report, the status reports from other High Courts are still awaited.

3. We request all the High Courts to consider the desirability of taking a decision for expeditious conclusion of the trials in the matters concerning acid attacks, in a time-bound manner and if required, even on an out-of-turn basis.

Re: Rehabilitation Scheme for the Victims of Acid Attack

4. While we have directed the High Courts to expedite and take the trials in the matters concerning acid attacks to their logical conclusion, it is equally incumbent upon the State and all concerned authorities to consider, formulate, and act upon appropriate rehabilitation measures for victims of acid attacks. As such, all the State Legal Services Authorities are directed to submit a report with respect to the scheme, if any, implemented by them for the grant of compensation, rehabilitation and medical aid to the victims of acid attack. If no such specific scheme has been formulated so far, we request the Executive Chairpersons of the State Legal Services Authorities to do the needful and submit a compliance report.

5. In addition, all the States and Union Territories are also directed to furnish the following information:

(i) The incidents of acid attack reported (year-wise).

(ii) Whether charge-sheets in those cases were filed or not?

(iii) How many cases have been decided and how many are still pending at the trial stage?

(iv) How many appeals arising out of the trials of acid attacks are pending?

(v) The brief particulars of each victim of acid attack, their academic qualifications, current employment status, marital status, the medical treatment and the details of the expenditure incurred or committed to be incurred by the State on such treatment.

6. The States are further directed to furnish separate details, including particulars of the victims of forceful ingestion/consumption of acid.

7. The needful shall be done by the State Governments, the High Courts, as well as the State Legal Services Authorities within a period of four weeks.

8. Post the matter on 09.03.2026.

(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SHAHEEN MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA

SHAHEEN MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA

Comments