March 15, 2002
‘7’
LAW MINISTER ALLAYS FEARS OF WOMEN ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BILL
The Union Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Shri Arunj Jaitley has said that apprehensions of women groups over the Domestic Violence Bill would be addressed by the Department Related Standing Committee of Parliament where the Bill most likely would go for a better scrutiny. Inaugurating a day long Seminar on Domestic Violence Bill, organized by the Centre For Social Research ( a women NGOs), here today. Shri Jaitley said law making was a very difficult exercise wherein the Government was open to improvement till the last moment.
Allaying the apprehensions of women groups on eleven –point of deficiencies in the Bill, the Law Minister said that the broad objective of the proposed law was to preserve the sanctity of family as divorce resulting from violence ultimately hurt women. Besides, the Law Minister said the proposed law would have to be interposed with Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Penal Code and other personal laws for overall improvement of human rights of women in the country.
The Law Minister also addressed an interactive question-answer session replying various queries to the delight of women audience.
A small committee of women activists headed by Ms. Ranjana Kumari, Director, Centre for Social Research, was set up in the Seminar to interact with the Law Minister for improving provisions of the Bill.
Issues raised by women on the Bill state :
It identifies perpetrators as criminals only when he ‘habitually assaults;
The Bill does not take into cognition mental, sexual and economic violence;
The Bill provides for alternatives rather than simultaneous relief for monetary as well as other relief;
If the violent act is done to protect his life and property, then it is labeled as self defence rather violent act. This will be used as a tool by the menkfolk, hence should be deleted from the Bill;
Presumption to the correctness of the statement should also be added in the Bill;
The Bill should recognize the residence as the petitioner’s and the onus to prove it otherwise should be on the perpetrator(s);
The ouster injunction specifically may also be granted;
The Bill should make provision for suspended sentence and a bond for good behaviour by the perpetrator for certain period.
The ambiguous terms like ‘immoral life’ ‘otherwise injuries’ makes it more general than specific;
There is no provision for periodic training of protection officers and law enforcing agencies and spell out mechanism for dissemination of information on the rights of the victims or duty of the states; and
The Bill hides some very crucial aspects more than it reveals.