Supreme Court Issues Comprehensive Directions For Effective Implementation Of Domestic Violence Act, 2005

The directions, passed by the Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma focus on ensuring that aggrieved women receive timely protection, shelter, medical aid, and legal support.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed in 2021 highlighting the gaps in implementation of the Domestic Violence Act across various jurisdictions.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s Senior Counsel emphasized the urgent need to appoint dedicated Protection Officers under Section 8 of the Act. Currently, several States have designated Anganwadi workers or ICDS staff for this role, which, the counsel argued, is inadequate given the sensitive and specialized nature of domestic violence cases.

Taking note of these concerns, the Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to identify and designate officers from the Department of Women and Child Development at the District and Taluka levels as Protection Officers.

These officers must be notified within six weeks where such designation has not yet been made. The Court also stressed that these designated officers must effectively discharge their duties as laid out under Section 9 of the Act.

Further, the Court directed the Chief Secretaries and Department Secretaries of Women and Child Welfare across States/UTs to coordinate this appointment process to ensure uniform compliance.

The Bench also addressed the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, which pertains to service providers. It directed all States and UTs to initiate steps to empanel qualified voluntary organizations and associations as registered service providers to assist victims of domestic violence. These providers are expected to help record incidents, provide medical and legal aid, and ensure shelter for aggrieved women.

Turning to the issue of shelter homes, the Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 6 of the Act, which requires that any woman seeking refuge due to domestic abuse be given shelter.

The States and UTs were directed to identify and notify shelter homes, including Nari Niketans and one-stop centres, at both District and Taluka levels within ten weeks.

Regarding medical support, the Court reminded the authorities of their obligations under Section 7, which requires medical facilities to be accessible to victims. States must ensure that aggrieved women can access nearby primary health centres and similar institutions for treatment.

The Court also invoked Section 11, which places a duty on the Central and State Governments to give wide publicity to the provisions of the Act and sensitize law enforcement and judicial officers. The Centre and States were directed to initiate robust media campaigns and ensure coordination across departments involved in implementing the Act.

In a key directive concerning legal aid, the Court pointed to Section 9(1)(d) of the Domestic Violence Act read with Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which entitles every woman to free legal services.

The Court directed the Member Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to communicate to all State Legal Services Authorities and, in turn, to their District and Taluka units, the need to proactively offer free legal aid and legal awareness to aggrieved women. Authorities must also give wide publicity to this entitlement so that victims are aware of their rights and remedies.

During the proceedings, the State of Arunachal Pradesh sought exemption from a previously imposed cost of Rs. 5,000, noting that it had been impleaded only after the cost order was passed. Accepting the submission, the Court set aside the cost order as far as Arunachal Pradesh was concerned.

The Court clarified that these directions are preliminary steps to ensure full and effective implementation of the Act and indicated that further directions may follow as the matter proceeds.