CASE STUDY: The Multi-Year Monitoring Project of The Lawyers Collective Women's Rights Initiative, in collaboration with The International Center for Research on Women, on the Implementation of the PWDVA in India.

The Lawyers Collective Women's Rights Initiative, in collaboration with The International Center for Research on Women, completed three Monitoring and Evaluations Reports on the implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005) (PWDVA) of India.  The overarching goal of the reports was to discern whether or not the PWDVA succeeded in protecting the human rights of women victims of violence.

The first report was issued in 2007. LCRWI gathered quantitative and qualitative data on infrastructure and implementation from court filings and orders. They determined the number of Protection Officers appointed and the number of service providers, shelters and medical facilities which had registered under the PWDVA as service providers for women victims of violence. (The PWDVA is gender-specific.) Among the key findings were:

1. A total of 7,913 applications have been filed under the PWDVA in the period ending 31 July 2007 (first nine months). Most of these proceedings are pending in court.
2. The primary users of the law are married women. There are also a number of cases wherein reliefs have been granted to widows and daughters.
3.  The most common form of relief granted was maintenance, followed by protection and residence orders.
4.  There was a clear need for coordination among government departments to adopt and maintain a multi-agency response.
5.  Protection officers needed adequate support and training.
6. The PWVDA itself need adequate government funding for full implementation.

The second report, Staying Alive: Second Monitoring & Evaluation Report 2008 on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, was published in 2008.  The LCRWI utilized a combination of qualitative and quantitative data in this report as well, utilizing questionnaires and field visits. They gathered more extensive data from the government ministries of 27 states of India. For instance, not only did they study the number, qualifications, and roles of Protection Officers and service providers, but for 20 states they developed interview templates to determine how they functioned and whether or not they were aiding women's access to justice.  For example, Protection Officers were asked if they recorded a Domestic Incidence Report. By their replies, the monitors were able to draw conclusions on misunderstandings about the PWVDA and about the expansion of Protection Officer roles in a way the law did not envisage (home visits and counseling). They organized a meeting which was attended by Representatives of the nodal Department of every state who then completed questionnaires and presented information on best practices and challenges they were facing in implementing the law.

The monitors analyzed specific aspects of the evolving implementation of the law. It monitored the background of service providers and their specific implementation programs. For example, one state used “Special Cells,” or specially trained social workers, in police stations for victims of violence. The LCWRI determined that the role of the “Special Cell” was a “catalyst” for the implementation of the law, coordinating with police, Protection Officers, and shelters, and providing trainings for police and women's groups. The LCRWI also analyzed the evolving jurisprudence on the PWDVA.  Among the key findings of this report were:

1.     Protection officers have been appointed at the district level in all states. Ten states have appointed Protection Officers at the sub-district level.

2.      Funding for the implementation of the law remained inadequate. 13 of the 27 states in the study had allocated specific budgets for the law, but funding remained too low.
3.     One state, Andhra Pradesh, allocated more funding and offered a supportive infrastructure, including training and awareness programs and coordination among stakeholders.  For more on this state's actions, see the Case study entitled “Andhra Pradesh” in Implementation of Laws.

The second report found that there were still no standard models or protocols for implementing the law. This report concentrated on data from Protection Officers, and provided convincing evidence of the evolution of those officers into effective implementers of the letter and spirit of the PWDVA. It found that more cases were filed than in the previous year, supporting the idea of increased public awareness.

The Third Monitoring & Evaluation Report 2009 on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (2009) found that increasing numbers of cases were filed under the act.  However, the courts were not responding with the speed necessary to protect a victim in need of protection, and were “hesitant to grant ex-parte orders even when the circumstances so demand…” p. iii.

In this report, the LCWRI and the International Center on Research on Women examined the knowledge, attitudes and practices around the law among police, protection officers, judges and other key stakeholders. They used this information to identify possible barriers to the law’s implementation. Utilizing a combination of quantitative and qualitative data from multiple data sources, they also asked key questions about women's experiences in using the law at different stages of litigation, and the factors which impede or facilitate the implementation of the law by the various stakeholders. They studied court orders and judgments. The LCWRI conducted training sessions with the police, judiciary and protection officers and collected data on their knowledge, attitudes and practice both before and after the training sessions.

Again, the monitoring study yielded a wealth of information. They found that a substantial proportion of the judiciary still believed that the welfare of the family should come before that of the woman, and that they were counseling women with the goal of preserving the family above that of safety of the woman. They found that police were confused about some of the provisions of the law.

The monitors used training sessions to achieve both training and monitoring. They noted that valuable information on the trainees’ implementation of the law can be obtained, and training on misperceptions can commence immediately. In a receptive atmosphere and with the support of their peers, interviewees may in fact reveal more about what they are really doing than in a more formal interview setting. The monitors noted that interactive trainings on a regular basis that explicitly address perceptions and attitudes are good practice.

The LCWRI collected data by completion and submission of questionnaires by state departments at a pre-Conference meeting. However, only one of the departments collected national level data, and data was not available from all of the stakeholders. Some states did not return data on some issues despite persistent requests. The monitors rightly concluded that this highlighted the need for a uniform system to collate and record data on cases filed under the PWDVA.

The third monitoring study found that in some states, women weren’t using the Protection Officers. In other states, Protection Officers were overworked. Creative solutions to problems encountered with implementation of the law were noted: the High Court in Andhra Pradesh set a special time for cases to be heard under the PWDVA to facilitate the schedules of the Officers. A general trend of women’s reluctance to use shelter homes nationwide was noted.

The third report made note of progress that has occurred since the first two monitoring reports: At the time of the first one, only the state of Andhra Pradesh had begun to implement effective coordination between government ministries which are required to address issues under the PWDVA. By the second, two more states had appointed Coordination Committees. At the time of the third monitoring report, a number of states had Coordination Committees, some of which were engaged in collecting data and submitting recommendations for the implementation of the PWDVA. Other states were using existing structures and adding coordination duties to their functions. The monitors presented detailed case studies on the implementation of the law in 2 states: Andhra Pradesh and Kerala.

Funding was still an important issue in the third monitoring report. Monitors noted that Protection Officers, a key part implementing the PWDVA, often try to combine this duty with other duties as Child Protection Officers, and also are not available on nights or holidays. The monitors concluded that independent, funded positions are vital to victim access. Other issues, such as the distinction between rights of ownership in a home and the right to reside there, and whether or not respondents could be females, continue to be concerns which need to be addressed. Importantly, the monitors also noted that police in some states continue to counsel the parties to end the violence and consider the matter to be resolved.

For the third monitoring report, the LCWRI completed an in-depth analysis of court orders and judgments in order to determine the knowledge and practice of the courts with regard to interpretation and use of the law, the nature of reliefs which are granted or denied, and how these reliefs are enforced. They also collected questionnaires from members of the judiciary following training. They asked about the type of domestic violence which occurs, the nature of relief sought, and the reasons for court denial. This information will be vital to improving judicial and Protection officer training so that women may receive effective protection from the PWDVA. A number of cases on issues arising from specific provisions of the law were analyzed. The monitors also described cases which were landmarks in the implementation of the law.

The LCWRI issued a number of conclusions and recommendations. Among them were:

• Sexual violence in marriage is not recognized as a form of violence against women.
• Female relatives of the male perpetrator need to be recognized as proper respondents under the Act.
• Protection Officers must complete a Domestic Incidence Report for every woman that approaches them to support her record of a history of violence.
• Clarity on the role of the police is needed.
• The number of ex parte orders granted is very low. Ex parte orders should be granted as a matter of routine whenever the evidence supports it.
• Court orders for protection must include direction for order enforcement, and courts need to provide updates to the Protection Officers regarding the orders.
• Independent and full-time Protection Officers must be appointed with adequate budget for them to perform their critical duties.
• States should adopt comprehensive systems for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the law.
• Reporting on specific indicators should be mandatory for all stakeholders.
• Cases filed under the PWDVA should be subject to a uniform registration requirement to facilitate future monitoring.