Domestic Violence Act Meant For Quick Remedy, Yet Cases Drag On Like Other Family Court Matters: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (November 4) orally expressed concerns at the slow pace of progress in cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), saying that they are moving like regular Family Court cases.The bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal observed that though the PWDVA Act was supposed to be a "quick remedy", the cases filed under it are being dragged on.The Court was hearing a petition filed by NGO 'We The Women of India', in which it had earlier issued directions for the effective implementation of the Act.Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, representing the petitioner, submitted that there is an "assistance network" formed in the PWDVA which includes Protection Officers, Service Providers, Shelter Homes and medical facilities are there to assist women in need. However, the data collected by them reveals that in many States, Protection Officers are appointed while on additional charges. The law requires at least one Protection Officer for each 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."Based on this affidavit filed by the Union, Gupta stated that their affidavits indicate Protection Officers have additional charges. She also referred to the affidavit where the Union Government mentioned Mission Shakti and One Stop Centres. Gupta averred that they had called some of the One Stop Centres and their response was not "very satisfactory".As per the April affidavit, Gupta stated that 3637 out of which 710 are holding regular charge. Others have additional responsibilities. Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati interjected and informed would place on record an updated status report and the petitioner can go through it. 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 Nagarathan was of the view that States need to be impleaded as parties are they are in charge of appointing Protection Officers. The Court will now hear the matter on December 2 and observed that the prayers made in the petition are "omnibus" directed the petitioner to file a common application which should include suggestions from the Union of India on specific directions sought from the Court. The Standing Counsel of the respective States and UT will be served copy of writ petition and significant orders of the Court through email. BackgroundOn February 25, 2022, the Court took cognisance of the petition and asked for some details on the Statewise litigation data under the PWDVA. It sought information on the nature of central programs or plans outlining assistance under the PWDVA and a broad indication as to what the desirable terms of creation of a regular cadre of Protection Officers, Career Progression and Cadre Structure etc.Pursuant to the further orders, a study was conducted by the National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) which indicated that 4, 71, 684 cases were pending under the PWDVA as of July 1, 2022. Approximately 21,008 appeals and revision petitions have been pending. The data on the appointment of Protection Officers in the States were collated and presented to the court.A bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta examined all the information and called the overall picture “dismal”. It found that many States had appointed only a few Protection Officers and some States had assigned additional duties to existing officers, while some had only one Protection officer per district.The court also referred to the affidavit submitted by the Union Government which indicated that 'Mission Shakti' under the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) has been framed as an umbrella scheme for ensuring safety, security and women empowerment. Under this, 'One Stop Centres' numbering 801 are emissioned. Union had told the court that all centres are functioning. However, the court stated that it has not been apprised of satisfactory details on the nature of duties discharged by Protection Officers and how 4.41 lacs cases are pending in 801 districts.It observed that the appointment of one Protection Officer in some districts ...

Domestic Violence Act Meant For Quick Remedy, Yet Cases Drag On Like Other Family Court Matters: Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags