Punjab and Haryana HC Seeks Govt Response on Enforcement of Protection Orders Under DV Act

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking a directive to establish provisions or rules for the mandatory enforcement of protection orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

A bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal, directed the Central Government, the States of Punjab and Haryana, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh to respond to the plea.

The matter is scheduled for the further hearing on September 26, 2024.

The petition, filed by advocate Sharmila Sharma, highlights numerous cases where domestic violence victims are suffering due to the non-execution of orders issued under the DV Act. Sharma argues that while the DV Act was enacted to ensure effective protection for women victims of domestic violence, it lacks a provision for mandatory execution of orders. Consequently, enforcement relies on provisions of the Cr.P.C (BNSS), which she asserts is inadequate.

Sharma points out that Section 20(6) of the DV Act allows a magistrate to enforce a monetary relief order suo motu if the respondent is a salaried individual or a creditor. However, such instances are rare. For self-employed respondents, victims must resort to Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 147 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for enforcement, which she argues is less effective.

Additionally, Section 31 of the DV Act outlines penalties for breaches of protection orders but lacks a procedure for implementing these penalties. Sharma contends that the DV Act’s provisions are inconsistent and insufficient both procedurally and substantively.

To address these shortcomings, Sharma cites Section 37 of the DV Act, which authorizes the Central Government to create rules for the law’s implementation. However, she notes that no such rules for protection orders have been established, undermining the Act’s purpose.

The plea also alleges that Protection Officers, as mandated by Section 8 of the DV Act, have not been appointed in every district of Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh. In response, the Haryana government informed the Court that Protection Officers have been appointed in all 22 districts, and Anganwadi workers have been designated as Village Level Protection Agents.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International