Centre Should Allocate Funds To Implement Domestic Violence Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that the Central Government cannot leave the implementation of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 to the States alone and should bear the responsibility of allocating funds for the enforcement of the rights under the Act.

A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha was hearing a PIL filed by the NGO "We The Women of India" seeking directions, inter-alia, to effectively implement provisions related to appointment of Protection Officers and creation of Shelter Homes under the Domestic Violence Act.

When the matter was taken, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati sought for time to file a status report in response to certain earlier queries made by the Court, saying that the concerned Secretary of the Ministry was unavailable due to a medical emergency.

While accepting the ASG's request for time, the bench made certain pertinent oral observations highlighting the importance of fund allocations.

"You create new enactments, new rights and leave it for states to implement. The States' resources may not match up with what you require. Without an assessment of the financial impact of the States, you create it", Justice Bhat told the ASG.

Adding that the Centre was the "nodal agency" for the implementation of the Act, Justice Bhat also referred to Article 247 of the Constitution which refers to the Parliament's power to create additional courts and indicated that this power may have to be invoked with respect to the DV Act.

"You will have to bear it by some way or the other, either as under Article 247 or any order of the court. Because you are creating new rights, new offences will also be there", Justice Bhat continued.

Justice Lalit added that when a new legislation is made, the financial aspect has to be assessed. Advocate Shoba Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a separate cadre for protection officers might be necessary.

At this juncture, Justice Lalit observed "some states have revenue officers doubling as protection officer.  It is a specialised kind of job which requires special training.We have no disrespect for revenue officers but at the same time training is different". It may be noted that on Febraury 25, the Court had disapproved the practice of some states designating revenue officials as Protection Officers under the Act.

The bench asked the Centre to identify the requirements relating to Protection Officers and Shelter Homes state-wise after getting the necessary statistics.

"First, you have to get the data and make a statistical analysis on basis of that what is the requirement in which state. Then, you must have some principles to be drawn to lay down as to how the cadre is required to be created, and what kind of funding is required to create a cadre...also, you have to take into account how many shelter homes should be there. You have to do in a nuanced manner", Justice Bhat told the ASG.

"As an unsolicited advise, we would tell you that whenever you come up with these kind of schemes, always keep in mind the financial impact and create provisions for that. Otherwise, you create the rights and leave it difficulty for the court to manage. The classic example is RTE Act. You have created the rights but where are the schools? And if you asks the States, they will say budget constraints and where do we get the money? You have to see the totality. Please work in that direction. Othewise this becomes only a lip service", Justice Lalit told the ASG.

The ASG agreed to file a status report taking note of the observations made by the Court. The Bench granted 2 weeks time to the Union to file the status report and posted the matter to April 26.

On the previous hearing date (February 25), the Court had directed Centre to file an affidavit regarding the following:

Click Here To Read/Download Order