HC issues contempt notices to top officials over failure to appoint officers under DV Act

The bench issued contempt notices to the principal secretaries of the finance and the women and child development departments, asking them to explain how the state’s failure to comply with judicial directions for over a decade did not amount to wilful disobedience

(Shutterstock)

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday rapped the state government for failing to comply with its 2014 order mandating the appointment of taluka-level protection officers under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

“When will the officers be appointed? The earlier judges who passed the orders have retired; tomorrow we will also retire. Whom do we issue contempt notices to,” the division bench of justices Revati Mohite Dere and Sandesh Patil said.

The bench issued contempt notices to the principal secretaries of the finance and the women and child development departments, asking them to explain how the state’s failure to comply with judicial directions for over a decade did not amount to wilful disobedience.

The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2011 by advocate Rajendra Dattatraya Anbhule, regarding large-scale vacancies and lack of implementation of the DV Act.

In April 2014, a bench of justices Abhay Oka and Amjed Sayeed had castigated the state government for years of inaction and excuses over the appointments, calling it a “very sad state of affairs”. It had directed the government to fill 216 posts by June 30, 2014, and to create protection officer posts for all 361 talukas in the state within six months. It had also ordered the appointment of legal advisers and data entry operators to support each officer.

In their judgement, a copy of which is with HT, the bench had noted that the finance department had repeatedly objected to the creation of the posts, arguing that it would be an “avoidable burden on the exchequer” and that the number of DV cases was “negligible.”

The bench had rejected such reasoning outright, observing that “perhaps the officers of the finance department are not aware of the large number of cases being filed under the Act.”

On Monday, the state government, represented by advocate Chandurkar, told the bench that of the 358 protection officer positions created across Maharashtra, 284 had been filled. “Balance 74 posts were left and 57 posts were approved by the finance department and advertised, leaving 17 posts to be approved by the finance department,” Chandurkar submitted.

But the bench appeared unimpressed. “In 2015, you had called for applicants and taken exams. This matter has been pending since then. What have you done? 358 posts were to be filled in, how many are still vacant,” justice Dere asked.

When the state cited procedural hurdles and documentation delays, the court lashed out at what it described as a pattern of bureaucratic excuses.

“And still you are making excuses like people are not coming for documentation? We don’t like monitoring the process, but we have to step in where you fail to perform your duties. Then, if we pass orders against you, (you) say the courts are harsh. Who is responsible for the implementation of the schemes? We must issue contempt orders. Your reasons are not palatable to us,” the bench observed.

The state will have to file its response to the contempt notices by November 6, the next date of hearing.