Introduction:

In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has raised concerns about the sluggish progress in cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), emphasising that the law was enacted to offer swift relief to aggrieved women. However, the Court observed that these cases are moving through the system at the pace of regular Family Court cases, defeating the very purpose of the legislation. This observation was made by a bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal during a hearing on a petition filed by the NGO ‘We The Women of India.’ The petition seeks effective implementation of the PWDVA, emphasizing the lack of sufficient Protection Officers, Service Providers, and shelter homes across many states, which undermines the relief framework designed to support women in distress.

Arguments by Petitioners:

• Inadequate Protection Officers and Shelter Homes:

Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, representing the petitioners, presented data highlighting the inadequate number of dedicated Protection Officers appointed across various states. According to Gupta, the PWDVA mandates at least one Protection Officer per district to ensure effective support for victims of domestic violence. However, in several states, Protection Officers are either appointed on an additional charge or are overburdened with dual responsibilities, such as managing child development. This situation, she argued, dilutes the efficiency and focus required for these officers to fulfil their duties under the Act. Gupta emphasized that, due to these dual responsibilities, many Protection Officers struggle to provide the quick response necessary for handling domestic violence cases.

• Lack of Functional One-Stop Centers and Mission Shakti:

The petitioner also argued that the Union Government’s affidavit, which highlighted the implementation of Mission Shakti and the establishment of One-Stop Centers across the country, did not fully address the needs on the ground. These centres are meant to provide integrated support, including medical, legal, and psychological assistance to women facing domestic violence. However, the petitioner claimed that calls to some of these centres did not yield satisfactory responses, revealing operational inefficiencies. Gupta highlighted that the data from April indicated that out of 3,637 appointed Protection Officers, only 710 held a regular charge, with the rest assigned additional duties. This data underscored the critical gap in resources and infrastructure essential for implementing the Act’s provisions effectively.

Government’s Position:

• Steps Taken Under Mission Shakti:

The Additional Solicitor General, Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Union Government, informed the court of the government’s commitment to address these gaps. She noted that the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) had taken significant steps under the Mission Shakti scheme to create a safer environment for women. This scheme, Bhati argued, provides an umbrella for several initiatives to support women, including the establishment of One-Stop Centers, shelter homes, and other facilities intended to assist victims of domestic violence. She also assured the Court that the government would submit an updated status report to address concerns raised by the petitioners.

• Need for Updated Data and State Cooperation:

The Union Government argued that delays in the effective implementation of the PWDVA are partly due to the lack of coordinated support from state governments. According to Bhati, the responsibility for appointing Protection Officers and ensuring the availability of shelter homes and other services falls primarily on the states. She pointed out that recent reports showed some improvement in certain states, where efforts had been made to appoint Protection Officers and create additional infrastructure. However, she acknowledged that more work needed to be done and suggested that each state be required to submit an updated status report on their implementation of the Act.

Supreme Court’s Observations:

• Delay in Cases and Unmet Needs for Swift Justice:

Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed that PWDVA cases are being delayed and treated like maintenance or family court cases, thus diminishing the efficacy of the Act as a quick remedy. The Court emphasized that these cases should not languish within the system as Family Court matters but instead should receive priority to ensure that relief is delivered promptly to the aggrieved parties. Justice Nagarathna also remarked that the implementation of the Act has been inadequate, particularly in states where only one Protection Officer is appointed per district or where officers are burdened with additional responsibilities.

• Lack of Dedicated Protection Officers:

The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of regular, full-time Protection Officers, noting that the additional responsibilities assigned to these officers significantly reduce their ability to handle the intense workload required for PWDVA cases. The Court referenced data that showed each Protection Officer is responsible for handling an overwhelming number of cases—up to 500 cases in certain districts. This workload, the Court observed, makes it nearly impossible for these officers to provide meaningful support, conduct on-the-spot inspections, and assist courts as required under the Act.

• Inadequate Shelter Homes and One-Stop Centers:

Referring to Section 6 of the PWDVA, which mandates that shelter homes be readily available for women in need, the Court found that many states lacked adequate shelter facilities and One-Stop Centers. The Court noted that while the Union Government’s Mission Shakti aims to provide comprehensive support for women, the current setup does not meet the required standard, and the on-the-ground reality does not align with the policy’s intent.

Court’s Judgement and Directions:

In light of the issues raised, the Supreme Court made a series of directions to address the systemic challenges facing the implementation of the PWDVA:

• Empirical Study and State Collaboration:

The Court directed the Secretary of the MWCD to convene a meeting with the Principal Secretaries of all states and union territories to assess the inadequacy of Protection Officers and other resources. The Union Finance Secretary, Secretary of the National Commission for Women, representatives of the National Human Rights Commission, and officials from the Ministry of Home Affairs and Social Justice were also instructed to participate in this meeting. The Court emphasized the need to examine the number of cases handled by each Protection Officer and determine whether the current staffing levels are sufficient to meet the demands of PWDVA implementation.

• Guidelines for Strengthening Protection Officers’ Cadre:

The Court ordered the Union Government to consider establishing a regular cadre of Protection Officers, with a clear structure for career progression and training. This guideline, the Court noted, should be developed based on an empirical study conducted in consultation with state governments, which would offer insights into the number of cases and workload each Protection Officer handles. By standardizing the role of Protection Officers, the Court aims to ensure that these officers can fulfil their duties effectively and provide comprehensive support to victims.

• Status Update on Mission Shakti and One-Stop Centers:

The MWCD was also instructed to submit an action-taken report detailing the implementation of Mission Shakti, including information on the establishment and operation of One-Stop Centers in each district. The Court requested a detailed breakdown of the centres’ locations, staffing patterns, workload, and the resources provided to ensure effective support for victims. This report is expected to include insights into coordination with hospitals, police stations, and local bodies to make the services of One-Stop Centers widely known and accessible.

• Future Hearing and Petitioner’s Application:

The Court adjourned the case to December 2, instructing the petitioner to file a consolidated application that includes specific recommendations for the Court’s consideration. This document will allow the Court to issue further directions based on inputs from both the Union Government and the states. The Court also requested that the petitioner serve a copy of the writ petition and all significant orders through email to the standing counsel of each state and union territory.

Background:

The Court initially took cognizance of the petition in February 2022, asking for data on the litigation under PWDVA across states. In response, the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) conducted a study, revealing that over 4.71 lakh cases under the PWDVA were pending as of July 2022, with an additional 21,008 appeals awaiting resolution. Following this, a bench led by Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta called the situation “dismal” and highlighted the inadequate appointment of Protection Officers across states. The Court subsequently issued directives in February 2023, aiming to convene a high-level meeting involving various central and state-level officials to address these deficiencies.