Domestic Violence Act Aims for Quick Relief, But Cases Still Drag On: Supreme Court

On Monday (November 4), the Supreme Court raised concerns about the slow progress of cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), noting that they are proceeding at the same pace as typical Family Court cases.

The bench, consisting of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal, pointed out that although the PWDVA was intended to provide a “quick remedy,” cases under this law are being prolonged.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the NGO ‘We The Women of India’, for which it had previously issued directives to ensure effective implementation of the Act.

Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, representing the petitioner, explained that the PWDVA includes an “assistance network” with Protection Officers, Service Providers, Shelter Homes, and medical facilities to support women in need. However, data collected by the network indicates that in many states, Protection Officers are appointed with additional responsibilities.

The law mandates a minimum of one Protection Officer per district.

She said: “The reply to this writ petition shows that not in all States they have one Protection Officer in each district that too on regular basis. The reply shows in many of the States they have persons with additional charge. So, Child Development Protection Officer will also be given an additional charge…Same goes with Service Providers. Shelter Homes to be available as per Section 6 in near vicinity needed to be one than one. We don’t have good shelter homes.”

Referring to the Union’s affidavit, Gupta noted that it confirms many Protection Officers are assigned additional duties. She also cited the Union Government’s mention of Mission Shakti and One Stop Centres, adding that calls made to some of these centers yielded responses that were “less than satisfactory.”

According to the April affidavit, Gupta highlighted that of the 3,637 Protection Officers, only 710 hold regular positions, while the others are handling extra responsibilities.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati intervened, stating that an updated status report would be submitted for the petitioner’s review.

To this, Justice Nagarathna remarked: “We find Domestic Violence Act is proceeding as if its a maintenance case or any other case before the Family Court. These cases are going on like this only. So, the various reliefs due to the aggrieved party as per Section 17 onwards, how quickly those reliefs could be granted is the question. They are going as if they are family court matters..This is for a quick remedy. It’s not a Family Court matter to be dragged on. Even there, it’s not supposed to be dragged on. Implementation of the Act must be seen. Why is there delay?

Justice Nagarathna suggested that states should be added as parties in the case since they are responsible for appointing Protection Officers.

The Court scheduled the next hearing for December 2, noting that the petition’s requests were broad. It directed the petitioner to submit a consolidated application incorporating specific recommendations from the Union of India on the directions sought. The Standing Counsel for each state and union territory will receive copies of the writ petition and key Court orders via email.

Background

On February 25, 2022, the Court acknowledged the petition and requested state-specific data on litigation under the PWDVA. It also sought information on central programs or initiatives providing assistance under the Act, along with general guidelines for establishing a regular cadre of Protection Officers, including career progression and cadre structure.

Following further orders, the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) conducted a study revealing that, as of July 1, 2022, there were 471,684 pending cases under the PWDVA, along with approximately 21,008 pending appeals and revision petitions. Information on the appointment of Protection Officers across states was also gathered and submitted to the Court.

A bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta reviewed the information and described the overall situation as “dismal.” They noted that many states had appointed only a limited number of Protection Officers, with some assigning additional duties to these officers, and others appointing just one Protection Officer per district.

The Court also referenced an affidavit from the Union Government stating that “Mission Shakti,” an initiative by the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD), has been established as an umbrella scheme to promote women’s safety, security, and empowerment. Under this scheme, 801 “One Stop Centres” have been launched.

The Union informed the Court that all centers are operational. However, the Court noted that it has not received sufficient details on the specific duties performed by Protection Officers or an explanation for the 441,000 pending cases across 801 districts.

The Court noted that appointing only one Protection Officer in certain districts is highly inadequate, as this would result in each officer having to oversee an average of at least 500 cases.

The Court remarked, “The responsibilities assigned to each Protection Officer are intensive and differ significantly from those of judicial officers. By law, Protection Officers are expected to conduct on-the-spot surveys, carry out inspections, and assist the courts by acting as intermediaries between victims, the police, and the judicial process. Their reports, particularly for emergency orders, are essential. Given this, it is necessary for the Union of India to thoroughly examine these aspects.”

Following this, on February 24, 2023, the Court issued the following directions:

1. The Secretary of the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) is directed to hold a meeting with the Principal Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to address the shortage of Protection Officers under the PWDVA. The meeting should also include the Union Finance Secretary, Secretary of the National Commission for Women, a representative of the Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, the Secretary of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, the Secretary of Social Justice and Empowerment, and a representative from the Chairperson of NALSA.
2. The meeting will focus on determining the number of cases assigned to each Protection Officer, the number of courts each officer is responsible for, the current number of Protection Officers in each district, and whether this staffing level meets local needs. The Court requested recommendations for guidelines to assess the appropriate number of Protection Officers and directed that an empirical study be conducted to compile information from states on their experience with implementing the PWDVA.
3. The MWCD is to provide an updated report on the implementation status of Mission Shakti. This should include details on the number of One-Stop Centres proposed for each district, the number currently operational, their locations, staffing structures, required personnel, and workload types. It should also clarify whether hospitals, police stations, and local bodies are expected to display contact information for the One-Stop Centres.
4. The Union is to outline the provisions of the PWDVA related to Mission Shakti and explain how it will serve as an umbrella scheme for implementing the PWDVA. Authorities were instructed to submit an action taken report within six months.