|
A report that studied how the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was being implemented two years after it came into force, finds that much of the infrastructure, budgetary allocation and interaction between various departments is still lacking
Many states are lagging behind in implementing the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by not appointing enough protection officers, providing inadequate budgetary support, and maintaining poor court records thus making the collection of data difficult. These were some of the findings of an attempt to monitor the impact of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) by the Lawyers Collective Women’s Rights Initiative (LCWRI), a non-governmental organisation, with assistance from UNIFEM’s South Asia office. The findings, compiled in a report entitled ‘Staying Alive: Second Monitoring and Evaluation Report 2008’, were presented to the National Commission for Women (NCW) at a seminar in New Delhi. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which came into force in October 2006, is a gender-specific law that recognises that women are disproportionately affected by domestic violence because of their unequal position in society vis-à-vis men. The report highlights several trends: There are major disparities in implementation of the law in various states. For instance, while Maharashtra appointed 3,687 protection officers, Assam had only 27 on its rolls, and Gujarat 25. Andhra Pradesh had an allocation of Rs 100 million for implementation of the PWDVA, while other states like Orissa lagged far behind. Not surprisingly, states that invested in implementation of the Act in terms of funds and personnel also reported the highest number of cases filed. Maharashtra filed 2,751 cases between July 2007 and August 2008 while Orissa could only manage 64 cases between October 2006 and August 2008. There are questions raised about the qualifications of protection officers who play a central role in facilitating women’s access to justice under the Act. According to the study, for instance, the majority of protection officers do not have a social work or law background; they are government officials from various departments vested with this additional responsibility. This has affected their capacity to intervene effectively. Inadequate budgetary allocation and lack of proper infrastructure to implement the PWDVA also emerged as areas of concern in the report. The report highlights the fact that the medical profession does not really acknowledge domestic violence as a public health issue despite the fact that it is a stakeholder in the PWDVA along with the police and the judiciary. The report highlights the problem of public opposition. Many have labelled the PWDVA as a law that propagates inequality. There are, at the moment, five petitions challenging the PWDVA in various high courts which argue that the Act violates the constitutional right to equality as it provides relief only to women. Till date, a judgment has been delivered only in one case (Aruna Pramod Shah vs Union of India) by the Delhi High Court. Public opposition to the PWDVA emphasises the urgent need for a change in mindset. Society must take ownership of the Act and deploy it to address the unacceptable and rampant crime of domestic violence. As Indira Jaising, Director, LCWRI, puts it: “It is time to make domestic violence a public issue rather than a private problem.” The report found that the main users of the PWDVA are married women. “This might mean that domestic violence is not recognised in a non-marital situation or not seen as a problem capable of legal resolution among siblings or parents and children. In marital relationships, the pattern is familiar: marriage accompanied by dowry, degradation of the status of the woman to a position of subordination and economic dependency, the demand for male children and, finally, the banishment of the woman to her natal home,” the report says. To read the full report, go to: http://www.lawyerscollective.org/wri/publications/staying-alive-2 Source: www.oneworld.net, January 15, 2009
News Blaze, January 6, 2009
www.lawyerscollective.org, January 2009
|
