The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed shock and anguish over the 16-year delay in the conclusion of a trial relating to an acid attack victim, saying it was a “shame” and a “mockery of the legal system”.
The apex court issued notices to all high courts across the country to furnish data on pending acid attack cases.
“We are really sorry. This is a mockery of the legal system. It’s such a shame that a trial of 2009 is still going on. If the national capital cannot handle this, then who will do it?” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed during a hearing.
The bench, which also had Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was dealing with a petition filed by an acid attack victim, Shaheen Malik, complaining about the delay in the trial of her case at a Rohini court despite the case being registered way back in 2009.
The CJI asked the petitioner, who made a submission in person along with her advocate, to file an application explaining the reasons for the delay so that appropriate directions can be issued, including a day-to-day trial.
The victim told the bench that despite her personal agony, she had been espousing the cause of other acid victims in the country. She told the bench that there were instances where some girls were forced to drink acid by their perpetrators.
In such cases, the victims cannot eat their food normally. They have to take the
help of medically installed food pipes.
Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, who was present, echoed the sentiments of the court and said no mercy should be shown to such offenders.
“They should be dealt with the same ruthlessness,” Mehta submitted, to which the bench replied: “Yes there should not be any mercy.”
The bench also suggested that such cases should be listed before special courts for expediting the trial.
The apex court then ordered: “Issue notice. Tushar Mehta, learned solicitor-general, who is present in court, graciously accepts notice on behalf of the Union of India. He has also expressed support towards the causes raised in the instant petition. List on 11.12.2025 to enable the learned solicitor-general to obtain instructions.”
