Pakistan is already armed with tough laws against acid violence. Now lawmakers want to raise the stakes further – but the bigger question is whether harsher punishment can finally turn deterrence from a promise into reality.
An acid attack does not simply leave a person injured. It can permanently alter their face, eyesight, mobility, employment, relationships and, in many cases, their entire sense of what life will look like afterwards. The physical damage may be visible, but the psychological and social consequences can continue long after the wounds have healed.
Now, Pakistan’s lawmakers are proposing an even tougher response.
The Senate Standing Committee on Interior has approved a Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill seeking to make acid attacks punishable by death, alongside life imprisonment or a prison term of at least 14 years and a fine of up to Rs2 million. The proposal seeks to amend Section 336-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, which deals with hurt caused by corrosive substances.
But before the headline becomes “Pakistan introduces death penalty for acid attacks”, there is an important distinction: the Senate committee has approved the bill; it has not yet become law. The proposal still has to move through the legislative process.
What Does The Bill Actually Change?
Pakistan is not starting from zero when it comes to acid-crime legislation.
The country strengthened its legal framework in 2011 through amendments that introduced Sections 336-A and 336-B into the Pakistan Penal Code. Section 336-A deals with causing hurt through corrosive substances, while Section 336-B sets out the punishment. Under the existing framework, perpetrators can face life imprisonment or imprisonment of at least 14 years, along with a fine.
The new proposal would push that punishment further.
If approved and enacted, a person convicted of an acid attack could face the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of not less than 14 years, together with a fine of up to Rs2 million.
The proposal was moved by Senator Muhammad Abdul Qadir and was approved by the Senate Standing Committee on Interior, chaired by Senator Faisal Saleem Rehman. The bill was considered even though the mover was not present, and it passed despite opposition from State Minister for Interior Talal Chaudhry. PPP lawmakers on the committee voted in favour. The committee specifically referred to the recent acid attack on a female doctor in Quetta as part of the reasoning behind the proposed amendment. That case involved 29-year-old Mahnoor Nasir, who was seriously injured at Quetta Civil Hospital after an employee allegedly threw acid at her.
And the timing is difficult to ignore. Recent acid attacks have continued to put the issue back in the spotlight, including an attack on a woman in Karachi’s Upper Gizri area last week. In August, the Supreme Court also described acid attacks as more heinous than homicide, calling them crimes that can leave victims facing what amounts to a “living death.”
The Bill Is Bigger Than Acid Attacks
The acid-attack proposal was only one part of a much broader package of criminal-law amendments considered by the committee.
Another bill would specifically criminalise abuse of domestic workers, covering physical violence, sexual harassment, threats, forced labour, wage theft, confiscation of identity documents, denial of food or medical care and humiliating treatment. The proposed punishment is up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to Rs100,000. Where abuse results in serious injury or death, the punishment could rise to life imprisonment and a fine of up to Rs500,000. The proposed offence would also be non-bailable and triable by a court of session.
The committee also approved amendments targeting the unauthorised transfer of LPG from larger cylinders into smaller ones. The proposed changes would increase the maximum punishment under Section 286 from six months to two years and raise the fine from Rs1,000 to Rs100,000. Under Section 286-A, the proposed prison term would rise from two to five years, with a fine of up to Rs500,000.
Another proposed amendment would make the wrongful detention of a dead body by a hospital or clinic a specific criminal offence. The bill responds to reports of hospitals withholding bodies until families settle outstanding bills, with the proposed punishment reaching up to two years and/or a Rs500,000 fine for a first offence. A second offence, or detention lasting more than 24 hours, could carry up to three years in prison and/or a fine of up to Rs1 million. Exceptions would apply where a body is being held for an autopsy or police investigation.
The committee also passed proposed amendments relating to rape investigations and trials and consumer protection in private healthcare, including measures against undisclosed charges, non-itemised bills and demands for advance payments before emergency treatment.
In other words, this was not simply a meeting about acid attacks. It was a wider attempt to tighten criminal law around some of the places where people are particularly vulnerable: in their homes, in hospitals, at the hands of abusive employers and in cases involving serious violence.
But Will Harsher Punishment Actually Deter Crime?
This is where the death-penalty debate becomes more complicated.
There is an understandable logic behind the proposal. If an attacker knows that throwing acid at another person could ultimately cost them their own life, the threat of punishment is supposed to become powerful enough to make them think twice.
And deterrence matters. An acid attack is not an impulsive slap or an ordinary assault. The very nature of the crime can involve deliberately using a corrosive substance to inflict extreme and potentially permanent harm. Pakistan’s existing legislation recognised that severity more than a decade ago, yet the crime has not disappeared. That raises an uncomfortable question: if tougher laws already exist, is increasing the maximum punishment the missing piece — or is the bigger problem whether perpetrators are consistently caught, prosecuted and convicted?
A law can threaten the harshest punishment imaginable. It cannot deter someone who believes they will never be held accountable.
That is why this proposal should not be viewed only through the lens of whether the death penalty is “tough enough”. It should also be judged by what happens before a sentence is ever handed down: whether survivors can report attacks safely, whether investigations are thorough, whether evidence is properly collected, whether cases actually reach court, whether proceedings are completed without endless delays and whether convictions are secured. The existing law itself was introduced with the aim of treating acid violence as a serious criminal offence, including minimum imprisonment and substantial financial penalties. So if the state wants deterrence, certainty of punishment may matter just as much as severity of punishment.
A Stronger Law Must Mean More Than A Stronger Sentence
There is another reason this conversation cannot end with the death penalty. For survivors, justice is not only about seeing an attacker punished. It is also about surviving what comes after the attack.
Acid violence can mean repeated surgeries, expensive medical treatment, rehabilitation, psychological trauma and the loss of education or employment. A criminal sentence may punish the perpetrator, but it does not automatically rebuild the life that was destroyed. That means stronger legislation needs to exist alongside serious investment in survivor support, medical care, rehabilitation, legal assistance and psychological services. And prevention matters too.
The 2011 legislation did not simply recognise the harm caused by acid attacks; it also created controls around corrosive substances and their unauthorised sale. If lawmakers genuinely want to reduce acid violence, controlling access to the weapons used to commit these attacks has to remain part of the conversation. Because the ultimate measure of a successful law should not be how frightening the punishment looks on paper.
It should be whether fewer people are attacked in the first place.
The Senate committee’s proposal sends a clear message: acid violence will not be treated as an ordinary crime. Given the lifelong damage these attacks can inflict, that message matters. But deterrence is strongest when the threat of punishment is not merely severe, but credible.
Pakistan can keep raising the sentence. It can debate life imprisonment, 14 years, millions in fines or even death. But if perpetrators continue to believe that the chances of being caught, convicted and punished are low, no sentence on paper will be enough. The real test of this bill, if it becomes law, will therefore not be how harshly Pakistan can punish acid attackers. It will be whether the state can make potential perpetrators believe that they will actually be held accountable.
Sources: Tribune, Dawn, Urdu Point
