Disposed

Kiran Srivastava and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2021WPIL/100/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the non-appointment of separate Protection Officers under the Domestic Violence Act, arguing inadequate manpower hinders relief. The court held delegation is permissible but directed the State to ensure delegation favors women where possible.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Government to ensure that any delegation of powers under Section 8 of the Act is, as far as possible, to women to meet legislative intent.

Kiran Srivastava and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 100 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Kiran Srivastava And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Petitioners undergoing their under Graduate Law Course have filed this petition in public interest raising cause of concern against increase in domestic violence and crime against women and inadequate manpower, particularly non appointment of separate Protection Officers under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶6

It is urged that the Protection Officer appointed under Section 8 of the Act of 2005 discharge the statutory duty stipulated under Section 9 of the Act of 2005 and with non appointment of regular Protection Officers, the duties assigned to him as contained in Clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 is not effectively performed as a result whereof, the effective reliefs contemplated under Chapter IV is not achieved. It is urged that with the appointment of regular Protection Officer, not only the incident will be controlled, but the victim will get early relief.

¶7

The pleadings in the petition and the supplementary affidavit reveal that District Probation Officers are delegated with the powers of the District Protection Officer.

¶8

True it is that Section 8 of 2005 Act provides for appointment of Protection Officers by the State Government. It stipulates that "the State Government shall by notification, appoint such number of Protection Officers in each districts as it may consider necessary and shall also notify the area or areas within which a Protection Officer shall exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred on him by or under this Act". However, there is no bar of appointment by delegation. The incumbent once delegated is under a statutory obligation to perform duties and function as stipulated under Section 9 of 2005 Act. Since the Protection Officer under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of 2005 Act is under the control and supervision of the Judicial Magistrate First Class or the Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the allegation that there is no implementation of the provisions of the Act of 2005 cannot be accepted.

¶9

As regard to contention that sub-section (2) of Section 8 of 2005 Act provides for that the Protection Officer shall be as far as possible be women and that amongst the existing workforce there are 89% male and 11% female, we deem it appropriate to direct the State Government to ensure that legislative intent contained in Section 8(2) of 2005 Act is meted out in letter and spirit in due course. In other words even if the State Government delegates power it shall ensure that the delegation is as far as possible to women.

¶10

With these observation, the petition is disposed of.

¶11

No costs.

¶12

Order Date :- 8.2.2021 sfa/

¶13

(Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J)

Kiran Srivastava and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Srivastava and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kapil Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shiv Shankar Vs Tehsildar/Naib Tasildar Hasayan and 2 Others

Bijay Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

M/S Taru Construction Vs State of U P and 3 Others

M/S Economic Builders and Consultants Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ramesh Kumar Dwivedi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others