On Monday, November 4, the Supreme Court raised concerns about the slow progress of cases filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), noting that their handling is similar to regular 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,” the cases linked to this law are facing unnecessary delays.
The Court was reviewing a petition from the NGO ‘We The Women of India,’ for which it had previously issued instructions to ensure the effective implementation of the Act.
Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, representing the petitioner, explained that the PWDVA includes an “assistance network” of Protection Officers, Service Providers, Shelter Homes, and medical facilities to support women in need. However, data collected by this network indicates that in several states, Protection Officers are being given additional responsibilities. The law mandates that at least one Protection Officer must be appointed 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.”
In relation to the Union’s affidavit, Gupta highlighted that it recognizes that many Protection Officers are assigned extra responsibilities. She also mentioned the Union Government’s reference to Mission Shakti and One Stop Centres, noting that the responses to some calls made to these centers were “less than satisfactory.”
Gupta pointed out that, according to the April affidavit, of the 3,637 Protection Officers, only 710 have permanent positions, while the remainder are handling additional duties.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati then interjected, stating that an updated status report would be provided 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 the states should be included as parties in the case due to their obligation to appoint Protection Officers. The Court set the next hearing for December 2, recognizing that the petition’s requests are extensive. It directed the petitioner to submit a consolidated application that includes specific recommendations from the Union of India concerning the requested directions. Copies of the writ petition and important Court orders will be emailed to the Standing Counsel for each state and union territory.
Background
On February 25, 2022, the Court acknowledged the petition and requested state-specific data on litigation related to the PWDVA. It also sought information about central programs or initiatives that provide assistance under the Act, along with general guidelines for creating a permanent cadre of Protection Officers, including their career progression and cadre structure.
Following the issuance of additional orders, the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) conducted a study, which revealed that as of July 1, 2022, there were 471,684 pending cases under the PWDVA, in addition to approximately 21,008 pending appeals and revision petitions. The study also gathered information on the appointment of Protection Officers in different states and presented it to the Court.
A bench consisting of Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta assessed the information and characterized the overall situation as “dismal.” They observed that many states had appointed only a small number of Protection Officers, with some assigning extra duties to these officers and others appointing just a single Protection Officer per district.
The Court referenced an affidavit from the Union Government stating that “Mission Shakti,” an initiative by the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD), has been created as a comprehensive scheme aimed at improving women’s safety, security, and empowerment. As part of this initiative, 801 “One Stop Centres” have been established.
The Union informed the Court that all centers are operational. However, the Court noted that it has not received sufficient information regarding the specific duties of Protection Officers or an explanation for the 441,000 pending cases across 801 districts.
The Court noted that appointing only one Protection Officer in some districts is severely inadequate, as this would require each officer to handle an average of at least 500 cases.
The Court remarked, “The duties assigned to each Protection Officer are challenging and significantly different from those of judicial officers. By law, Protection Officers must carry out on-the-spot surveys, conduct inspections, and facilitate communication between victims, the police, and the judicial system. Their reports, particularly for emergency orders, are crucial. Therefore, it is vital for the Union of India to thoroughly consider these factors.”
Subsequently, on February 24, 2023, the Court issued the following directives:
- The Secretary of the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) is directed to convene a meeting with the Principal Secretaries of all States and Union Territories to address the shortage of Protection Officers under the PWDVA. This meeting should also include the Union Finance Secretary, the 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.
- The meeting will focus on determining the number of cases assigned to each Protection Officer, the number of courts overseen by each officer, the current number of Protection Officers in each district, and whether this staffing level adequately meets local needs. The Court requested recommendations for guidelines to ascertain the appropriate number of Protection Officers and instructed that an empirical study be conducted to gather information from states about their experiences with implementing the PWDVA.
- The MWCD is required to submit an updated report on the implementation status of Mission Shakti. This report should include details on the number of One-Stop Centres proposed for each district, the number currently operational, their locations, staffing structures, necessary personnel, and types of workloads. Additionally, it should specify whether hospitals, police stations, and local bodies are expected to display contact information for the One-Stop Centres.
- The Union is tasked with detailing the provisions of the PWDVA in relation to Mission Shakti and explaining how it will function as a comprehensive scheme for implementing the PWDVA. Authorities were directed to submit an action taken report within six months.
