INTRODUCTION 

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, enacted 2 decades ago, is an act to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution of India to choose who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. This Act has been passed in furtherance of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, which provides inter alia for the protection of women and children. Prior to the enactment of this legislation. The remedies for the accused were largely limited to the criminal law, which often fell short in addressing civil aspects and the immediate needs of the victim. With enactment, comprehensive civil remedies and a proper definition of domestic violence were introduced. This legal framework aims to uphold the dignity and safety of women within their homes, recognizing that domestic violence is a serious human rights issue requiring specialized legal intervention. 

THE CASE – We the women of India v. Union of India 

‘We the Women of India’ is a collective organization of women who filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to the Supreme Court, making the Union of India, all State Governments, and the Union Territories as respondents. The petitioners sought comprehensive directions to ensure the efficient enforcement and implementation of the Prevention of Women for Domestic Violence Act across all state governments and state entities. The writ petition also sought the initiation and conduct of awareness campaigns on crimes against women. The case found itself before several benches over the years. On November 4, 2024, a division bench issued notice to all states and union territories. However, these notices were not complied with by all the states. The bench imposed a payment of the cost of rupees 5000 on the non-compliant states and Union Territories. However, on May 20, 2025, the bench set aside the order for payment of the cost of Rupees 5000 of Arunachal Pradesh as the state submitted that it was impleaded in the subsequent case.

KEY PROVISIONS IN CHALLENGE FOR IMPLEMENTATION 

Section 6 lists the duties of shelter homes. According to this section, if the aggrieved person or on her behalf, the protection officer or service provider requests shelter home, then it shall be the duty of such owner to provide shelter. 

Section 7 provides for the duties of the medical facilities. 

Section 8 of the PWDVA 2005 provides for the appointment of protection officers. According to the section, the State Government shall provide for such number. Of protection officers as it may deem necessary and by notification, empowered them to exercise their power and function in furtherance of their duties within a particular district. As far as possible, these protection officers should be women and must possess such qualifications and experience as may be prescribed. 

Section 9 of the said Act lists the duties and functions of the protection officers such as to assist the magistrate in discharge of his function, prepare report and forward them to magistrate or the police officer, maintain the list of all service providers, get the aggrieved person medically examined, provide a safe shelter home etc. 

Section 10 states that any voluntary association or a company registered under the law, which was enforced for the time being with the objective of protecting the rights and interests of the woman by lawful means, shall resolve itself with the State Government as a service provider for the purpose of the Act. The duties and functions of this service provider are listed in the same section. Moreover, they are provided immunity from any proceedings against them while discharging their duties in good faith. 

Section 11 lists down the duties of both the central and state governments, such as proper publicity of the provisions of the act, timely sensitization, and proper training of the government officials etc.  

SUPREME COURT’S DIRECTIVES 

1. Section 8 calls for the appointment of protection officers. However, till the time these officers are appointed, their designation cannot be left vacant. Therefore, there is an absolute necessity for designating certain officers at the taluka and district level, such as officers working in the Department of Women and Child at the district and taluka level, for rendering services as protection officers to the victims of domestic violence. Such exercise shall take place within 6 weeks, wherever the protection officers have not taken place.   
2. To empanel the service provider, as provided for under section 10, in such states and Union Territories where there is no empanelment or the empaneled service providers are inadequate to further the objective of the Act. 
3. The medical facilities must be rendered as and when necessitated to an aggrieved woman, including having access to the Primary Health Center or any other local medical Health Center for medical treatment as provided for under section 7.  
4. The State Government and the Union Territories, under section 11, must give adequate publicity through media about the provisions of this act, so that a distressed woman in a domestic relationship is aware of their rights and remedies under the said Act and to ensure that the protocols of the various ministries concerned with the delivery of service under the act are took in place.  
5. Section 11 also imposes a duty on the Central Government, and therefore, the Supreme Court directs are adequate and sufficient steps should be taken by the Union of India for the implementation of Section 11 of the Act. 
6. Section 9 (d) read with Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987, inter alia, states that every woman is entitled to legal services. It shall be the onus of the NALSA to communicate to the member secretaries of the state legal services authorities, who in turn would communicate to the district and taluk level member secretaries that they need to provide legal aid. Distressed women who are aggrieved by domestic violence to seek remedies under the provisions of the Act. 
7. The Member Secretaries at the State, districts, and Taluks level may give adequate publicity to this aspect in the context of the provision of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It goes without saying that should any distressed woman approach the member secretary or any other officer of the Legal Service Authority for seeking legal aid and advice, the same would be provided expeditiously since the act envisages that every woman is entitled to free legal aid. 

OTHER KEY CASE LAWS 

The landmark case laws that have brought positive changes to the landscape of the legislation seeking to protect women against Domestic Violence include, 

1. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 

Herein, the Supreme Court listed the comprehensive guidelines that determine and distinguish the live-in relationships from those that are in the ‘nature of marriage’. Additionally, this landmark case broadened the scope of the Domestic Violence Act to include those live-ins that are in the nature of marriage. Thereby protecting those women who were previously left vulnerable due to being outside the formal material structure. 

2. Hiral P. Hasora and Ors. V. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors. (2016) 

Under this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court struck down the world’s ‘adult male person’ from the definition of respondent in Section 2(q) of the PWDVA. This ruling removed the gender specific limitation on who could be the perpetrator of domestic violence under the Act, effectively making it a gender-neutral legislation in terms of the respondent.  

3. Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2011) 

This judgment provided clarity on the definition of ‘shared household’ under the Act, effectively overriding the restrictive interpretation of the earlier S.R. Batra case. The Supreme Court held that the right of residence of an aggrieved person who lives in the shared household is not dependent on the ownership rights of the respondent, thereby significantly enhancing the security of resident of women facing domestic violence, ensuring that they are not easily displaced from their matrimonial or shared homes.  

4. Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022) 

The judgment provided clarity by ruling that there is no limitation period for filing an application under Section 12 of the Act for various reliefs such as protection orders and residence orders. 

CONCLUSION 

The ‘We the Women of India v. Union of India’ case, alongside the landmark judgment, discusses and underscores the dynamic evolution of legal protection against domestic violence in India. The Supreme Court’s directives for mandatory appointment of protection officers, empanelment of service providers, ensuring medical facilities, and robust awareness campaigns are crucial steps towards realizing the full potential of the legislation. These directions, coupled with judicial interpretations that have expanded the definition of domestic relationship, shared household and promoted gender neutrality of the respondent, significantly strengthened the legislative landscape by dismantling previous limitations. It ensures broader accessibility to justice. Various rulings have empowered women to seek redress and protection more effectively; the continued engagement of the judiciary is vital in ensuring the spirit of the art, which aims to secure rights and dignity of women, is translated into concrete actions on the ground, fostering A safer and more equitable environment for all 

AUTHOR: KAVYA GUPTA

REFERENCES 

1. https://www.sci.gov.in/view-pdf/?diary_no=204132021&type=o&order_date=2025-05-20&from=latest_judgements_order 

2. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/supreme-court-directs-implementation-of-domestic-violence-act/ 
3. Protection of women from domestic violence act (bare act)