PHC Seeks Govt Reply on Acid Sale Regulation Plea

The Peshawar High Court has asked the federal and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governments to respond to a petition seeking tighter controls on the retail sale of acid and other corrosive substances. The case, heard in Peshawar and reported on July 18, 2026, places renewed judicial focus on a long-running public safety concern linked to acid attacks and access to hazardous chemicals.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Farah Jamshed issued notices after a preliminary hearing on the petition filed by Aimen Jehangir and two other lawyers. The petitioners argued that concentrated acids and corrosive compounds are still too easily available in the market, often without licensing, identification checks or any reliable system to track buyers.

The plea asks the court to declare that unrestricted and unmonitored retail sale of such substances is unlawful and inconsistent with constitutional protections related to dignity, life, equality and lawful treatment. The petitioners also want the authorities to frame detailed rules under the Acid Control and Acid Crime Prevention Act, 2011, including seller licensing, buyer identification, safe storage standards and transport controls.

During the hearing, Advocate Ayesha Malik appeared for the petitioners and described the open sale of acid as a persistent threat to women and the wider public. She argued that acid attacks are not ordinary crimes because they can permanently destroy a survivor’s physical, psychological and social life. The petition also cited recent incidents, including an attack on a woman doctor in a Quetta hospital, to underline that workplaces and public spaces remain vulnerable.

The petition names several respondents, including the federal interior secretary, the KP chief secretary, the provincial home and health departments, the KP police chief, the KP Drug Control and Pharmacy Services directorate and the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority. By including both federal and provincial authorities, the plea seeks a coordinated regulatory framework rather than fragmented enforcement.

The legal argument is built around the claim that punishment after an acid attack is not enough if the state does not prevent easy access to dangerous corrosive substances in the first place. Although the 2011 law criminalised acid attacks and increased penalties, the petitioners maintain that the absence of a strong licensing and monitoring system has weakened the law’s preventive purpose.

The petitioners have asked for mandatory CNIC verification, buyer records, declared purpose of purchase and registers that can be inspected by the authorities. They have also sought directions for security audits at public and private healthcare facilities and educational institutions, particularly to improve safety for women employees, staff and students.

The issue carries national significance because acid violence has long been linked to gender-based abuse, domestic disputes, workplace harassment and weak regulation of hazardous materials. While acid is used in several legitimate industrial, commercial and household activities, the absence of strict retail safeguards can turn an otherwise regulated chemical into a weapon of intimidation and lasting harm.

If the court proceeds further, the case could push the government to explain what steps have been taken since the 2011 legislation and whether additional rules are needed for enforcement in KP. The next phase will determine whether the petition becomes a broader test case for acid sale regulation, victim protection and preventive policing across Pakistan.