JUDGMENT

J.B.PARDIWALA, J.

1. This petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation arises from the suo-motu cognizance taken by the High Court on the basis of a news item published on 05.07.2012 in The Times of India (Ahmedabad Edition) captioned Thrown out by violent husband ? - Wait For Three Months To File A Domestic Violence Complaint! and Class no bar for Woman Battering , sub-captioned Protection Officers are exploited too .

2. In the first news item by Ms.Radha Sharma and Mr.Parth Shastri appearing on the front page, it is reported that the ladies mentioned therein, who were desirous of filing complaints (Domestic Incident Report) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( the Domestic Violence Act ), were told to wait for three months to do so, as there is a pendency of complaints and only one Protection Officer is appointed for the entire Ahmedabad District to handle the complaints.

3. The second news item by Mr.Parth Shastri on Page-2 of the Newspaper under the sub-caption Protection Officers are exploited too highlights the plight of Protection Officers, who are not provided with even the basic amenities and facilities or a decent environment in order to perform their duties and obligations under the Domestic Violence Act. It is also reported that they do not receive salaries in time. The gravamen of the charge in the said news item was that there are not enough Protection Officers appointed by the State Government in each district and the Protection Officers appointed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are not being provided with basic amenities, facilities and a decent environment to perform their duties and obligations under the Act.

4. To put it briefly the deficiencies could be reduced to four things-

(a) First, only one Protection Officer was found to be functioning in Ahmedabad District. The situation in other districts was worse.

(b) Secondly, the basic amenities and facilities were not provided to the Protection Officers in order to perform their duties and obligations under the Act. Most of them do not have a proper place of work with minimal infrastructure and staff.

c. Thirdly, the timely payment of salary was not being done to the Protection Officers.

(d) On account of dearth of Protection Officers, the complaints filed by women in several areas remained pending for a long time and without being attended.

5. Mr.Shalin Mehta, the learned Senior Advocate was appointed by this Court as AMICUS CURIAE to assist the Court on the issue in question. Mr.Mehta invited our attention to the various provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. According to Mr.Mehta, Protection Officers are appointed by the State Government under Section 8(1) of the Act, 2005. At this stage, it would be profitable to consider few relevant provisions of the Act, 2005. The relevant provisions of the said Act are --

“2. (n) "Protection Officer" means an officer appointed by the State Government under sub-section (1) of section 8;

3. Definition of domestic violence. --

For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it -

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental,