Also Read - Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case, Highlights Rehabilitation Prospects

Justice Bagchi observed that certain treatments required by acid‑attack victims are not accessible locally and therefore necessitate travel to urban centres equipped with advanced medical facilities. The court’s line of questioning underscored the need to align the Railways’ concession policy with the substantive rights recognised under the RPwD Act.

In a related development, the Supreme Court recently exercised its special powers to clarify that the definition of ‘acid attack victim’ under the RPwD Act encompasses not only persons with visible disfigurement but also individuals who were forcibly made to consume acid or who sustained internal injuries without external marks. The Court held that this interpretation shall apply retrospectively from the date of the Act’s commencement in 2016. Following the pronouncement, the Union government issued the necessary amendment to the statutory provisions to give effect to the expanded definition.

Also Read - Supreme Court Full Court Resolves to Hear 100 Batch Matters and Introduce Case Management Measures

The present litigation, titled Atijeevan Society v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) No. 30/2026, remains pending as the court awaits the Union’s response on the inclusion of acid‑attack survivors within the existing concession and emergency quota framework. The bench’s observations signal a potential shift towards a more inclusive application of disability‑related benefits in public transportation, contingent upon the executive’s compliance with the statutory mandate introduced by the RPwD Act.