Domestic Violence Law Aims for Quick Resolution, But Cases Continue Like Other Family Court Cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court orally on Monday, November 4, expressed concern about the slow pace of progress in cases. Law to Protect Women from Domestic Violence2005 (PWDVA) says it proceeds like normal Family Court cases.

The bench consists of: Justices BV Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal He observed that while the PWDVA Act was supposed to be a “quick solution”, cases filed under it were delayed.

The court was earlier hearing a petition filed by NGO “We Women of India”. published instructions For the effective implementation of the law.

Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, Representing the petitioner, he stated that a “help network” at PWDVA, including Protection Officers, Service Providers, Shelters and medical facilities, exists to assist women in need. However, the data they have collected reveals that in many States, Conservation Officers are appointed for additional pay.

The law requires at least one Conservation Officer for each district.

He said: “The response to this writ petition shows that not all states have a Conservation Officer in every district on a regular basis. The answer indicates that many states have surcharges. So the Child Development Protection Officer will also be paid extra… The same goes for Service Providers. There must be more than one Shelter in the vicinity in accordance with Section 6. We don’t have a good shelter.”

Based on this statement submitted by the union, Gupta stated that their statement shows that Conservation Officers have additional charges. He also referred to the Union Government’s statement in which it mentioned Mission Shakti and One Stop Centres. Gupta claimed that they called some of the One Stop Centers and their response was “not very satisfactory”.

According to the April declaration, Gupta stated that 3637 people were employed, of which 710 were on regular duty. Others have additional responsibilities.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati intervened and stated that an updated status report would be on record and the petitioner could review it.

Thereupon Justice Nagarathna stated: “We see the Domestic Violence Act proceeding in the Family Court like a child support case or any other case. These cases just continue like this. Therefore, from Article 17 onwards, the question arises of how quickly the various assistance given to the aggrieved party can be provided. They’re acting like it’s a family court matter. This is for a quick solution. This is not a Family Court matter that will be dragged out. It shouldn’t even be dragged there. The implementation of the law needs to be seen. Why is there a delay?”

Justice Nagarathan was of the view that the parties responsible for the appointment of Conservation Officers should be the states.

The Court will now hear the matter on December 2 and, observing that the prayers made in the petition are “multi-faceted”, directed the petitioner to file a joint application, which should also include suggestions of the Union of India regarding the specific directions sought from the Court. The Standing Counsel of the respective States and UT will be sent a copy of the writ petition and important orders of the Court via email.

Background

On February 25, 2022, the Court considered the petition and requested some details about State case data under PWDVA. It sought information on the nature of central programs or plans outlining assistance under PWDVA and a broad indication of what are the desirable conditions for the establishment of a regular cadre of Protection Officers, Career Development and Staff Structure etc.

In line with the additional orders received, a study was conducted by the National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) that 4,71,684 cases were pending under PWDVA as of July 1, 2022. Approximately 21,008 objections and correction petitions are pending. Data on the appointment of Conservation Officers in the states was compiled and submitted to the court.

a bench S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta examined all the information and described the overall picture as “bleak.” It found that many States appointed only a few Protection Officers and that some States assigned 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 stating that the ‘Shakti Mission’ under the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) has been framed as an umbrella scheme to ensure safety, security and women empowerment. Below this, 801 numbered ‘One Stop Centres’ emerge.

The union had told the court that all centers were functioning. However, the court stated that it was not informed about the nature of duties performed by the Protection Officers and satisfactory details about how 4.41 lakh cases were ongoing in 801 districts.

He observed that in some areas the appointment of a Protection Officer was grossly inadequate as it would result in one officer having to monitor an average of not less than 500 cases.

The court observed: “The nature of the responsibilities that each Protection Officer must carry out is intense and not of the type expected of judicial officers. Protection Officers are required by law to conduct on-site inspections and inspections and assist the courts by acting as the interface between victims, police and the judicial process. The reports they provide are very important, especially for urgent orders. Under these circumstances, it will be necessary for the Union of India to examine these aspects intensively..”

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

Union Secretary Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) will hold a meeting with the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to review the shortage of Protection Officers under PWDVA. The meeting will be attended by Union Finance Secretary, Secretary of National Women’s Commission, Presidential candidate of National Human Rights Commission, Union Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs, Social Justice and Empowerment Secretary and NALSA Presidential candidate.
The meeting will be concerned with determining how many cases are allocated to each Protection Officer, how many courts should deal with each Protection Officer, the current strength of Protection Officers in each area and whether this is sufficient to meet the needs in that area. specific area. It sought suggestions on guidelines required to assess the strength of Conservation Officers and directed to conduct an empirical study and compile information collected from States on their experience of implementing PWDVA.
MWCD will record the current status of the implementation of Mission Shakti. Specify information regarding the number of One Stop Centers proposed in each region, the number of One Stop Centers made functional, the location where the One Stop Center will be established, staffing pattern, nature of manpower and workload required, availability of hospitals/police stations and local institutions. One Stop Centers etc. You must specify contact information.
The Association will specify the provisions under the PWDVA in relation to Mission Shakti and how it will act as an umbrella scheme for the implementation of the PWDVA. Officials were asked to submit a report on action taken within six months.

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

Related Posts