close
close

Le-verdict

News with a Local Lens

    • Domestic Violence Act is supposed to provide quick solution, but cases drag on like other cases in family court: Supreme Court
    minsta

    Domestic Violence Act is supposed to provide quick solution, but cases drag on like other cases in family court: Supreme Court

    Pabio Posted on

    The Supreme Court orally expressed its concerns on Monday, November 4, about the slow progress in cases falling under the Law on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence2005 (PWDVA), stating that they proceed like ordinary family court cases.

    The bench including Justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal observed that even though the PWDVA Act was meant to be a “quick fix”, complaints filed under the Act have been dragging on.

    The Court was hearing a petition filed by the NGO ‘We The Women of India’, in which it had earlier instructions issued for the effective implementation of the law.

    Shobha Gupta, Senior Advocate, representing the petitioner, argued that there is a “help network” formed within the PWDVA which includes protection officers, service providers, shelters and medical facilities who are there to help the women in need. However, the data collected reveals that in many states, protection officers are appointed at an additional cost.

    The law requires at least one protection officer for each district.

    She said: “The response to this petition shows that not all states have a protection officer in every district equally regularly. The response shows that in many states there are people paying extra fees. Thus, the person responsible for the protection of the child’s development will also be charged additional fees… The same applies to service providers. The shelters required to be available in accordance with Section 6 in the immediate vicinity were to be one or one. We don’t have any good shelters.”

    Based on this affidavit filed by the union, Gupta said his affidavits indicate the protection officers have additional charges. She also referred to the affidavit in which the Union government mentioned Mission Shakti and one-stop centers. Gupta claimed that they had called some of the one-stop centers and their response was not “very satisfactory”.

    As per the April affidavit, Gupta said 3,637, including 710, are in regular charge. Others have additional responsibilities.

    Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati intervenes and informs that he will file an updated status report and the petitioner can go through it.

    To this, Justice Nagarathna remarked: “We find that the domestic violence law proceeds as if it were a child support case or any other matter in the family court. These cases happen like this only. Thus, the question of various reliefs due to the aggrieved party under and from Section 17 is how quickly such reliefs could be granted. They proceed as if they were family court matters. This is for a quick fix. This is not a family court matter. Even then, things should not be dragged out. The implementation of the law must be visible. Why is there a delay? »

    Justice Nagarathan was of the view that the States must be impleaded since the parties are responsible for appointing the protection officers.

    The Court will now hear the matter on December 2 and observed that the prayers made in the petition are “omnibus” and request the petitioner to file a common petition which should include suggestions from the Union of India on the specific directions sought from the Court. The Standing Counsel of the respective States and the UT will receive a copy of the written application and important orders of the Court via email.

    Background

    On February 25, 2022, the Court took notice of the petition and requested some details on state litigation data under the PWDVA. She sought information on the nature of the central programs or plans describing assistance under the PWDVA and a general indication of the desirable conditions for the creation of a regular cadre of protection officers, career progression and structure frame, etc.

    As per the new orders, a study was conducted by the National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) which indicated that as on July 1, 2022, 4,71,684 cases were pending under the PWDVA. Approximately 21,008 appeals and requests for review were pending. Data on the appointment of protection officers in the states was collected and presented to the court.

    A bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta reviewed all the information and called the overall picture “dismal.” It revealed that many states had appointed only a few protection officers and some states had given additional duties to existing officers, while others had only one protection officer per district.

    The court also referred to the affidavit submitted by the Union government which stated that ‘Mission Shakti’ under the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) was conceived as a comprehensive program aimed at ensuring the safety, security and empowerment of women. In this context, “single centers” numbering 801 are issued.

    Union had told the court that all the centers were functioning. However, the court said it was not provided with satisfactory details about the nature of functions performed by the protection officers and how 4.41 lac cases were pending in 801 districts.

    She observed that the appointment of a protection officer in some districts is grossly inappropriate as it would require an officer to monitor at least 500 cases on an average.

    The court observed: “The nature of the responsibilities that each protection officer is required to assume is intensive and does not correspond to that expected of officers of the law. Protection officers are required by law to carry out on-site investigations and inspections, assisting the courts by acting as an interface between victims, the police and the legal process. Their reports, especially for emergency orders, are crucial. In these circumstances, it would be necessary for the Union of India to look into these aspects in depth..”

    Accordingly, on February 24, 2023, the court adopted certain directions listed below:

    1. The Union Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) Secretary will convene a meeting with the Principal Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to review the inadequacy of protection officers under the of the PWDVA. The meeting will be attended by Union Finance Secretary, Secretary National Commission for Women, Chairman-designate National Human Rights Commission, Secretary Union Home Ministry, Secretary of Social Justice and Empowerment and an appointee of the President of NALSA.

    2. The meeting will aim to determine how many cases have been allocated to each protection officer, how many courts are to be covered by each protection officer, the current strength of protection officers in each district and whether this is adequate to meet the needs in this area. specific domain. He sought suggestions on the guidelines needed to assess the strength of protection officers and ordered to conduct an empirical study and collate information collected from states on their experience in implementing the PWDVA.

    3. The MWCD should record the current status of the implementation of Mission Shakti. Specify information on the number of one-stop centers proposed in each district, the number of one-stop centers made functional, the place where the one-stop shop will be located, the staff structure, the manpower required and the nature workload, whether hospitals/police stations and local bodies are required to provide contact details of one-stop centers, etc.

    4. The Union will indicate the provisions of the PWDVA regarding Mission Shakti and how it will act as an umbrella program for the implementation of the PWDVA. The authorities have been asked to submit a report on the measures taken within six months.

    Case Details: WE, THE WOMEN OF INDIA v. UNION OF INDIA ET ORS., WP(C) No. 1156/2021

    Pabio
    View all posts

    You Might Also Like