The Uttarakhand High Court has affirmed that a woman facing credible threats to her life due to domestic violence may invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court when she is unable to access statutory remedies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 due to fear and intimidation. The Court directed local police to objectively assess the threat and provide necessary protection, reinforcing the state’s duty to safeguard life and liberty under Article 21.
The Verdict
The petitioner, a woman facing alleged life-threatening harassment from her husband and in-laws, prevailed. The Uttarakhand High Court held that when fear of violence prevents a woman from initiating proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, her invocation of writ jurisdiction is valid and warranted. The Court directed the local police station to objectively assess the threat to her life and liberty and provide immediate protection if an imminent danger is found.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, a married woman with two minor children, alleged sustained harassment and cruelty by her husband and in-laws, which compelled her to flee her matrimonial home. She left behind her daughter, aged eight, and son, aged five. She is currently residing with a friend in Shivpuram, Roorkee, under conditions of acute fear. She claims her husband and in-laws are intent on eliminating her and that she is too terrified to approach the competent court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Despite the availability of statutory remedies, her fear of retaliation has rendered her unable to file complaints or seek protection orders. She approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking immediate protection, as she perceived no other viable avenue for safety. The Court took note of her personal presence and her detailed submissions regarding the gravity of the threat.
The Legal Issue
Can a woman invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to seek immediate protection from domestic violence when she is unable to access remedies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 due to well-founded fear of retaliation?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity and freedom from fear. They contended that the statutory framework under the DV Act is rendered ineffective when fear of violence prevents a victim from approaching the court. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s observation in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan that procedural barriers must not defeat substantive rights. The petitioner’s inability to file a complaint was not due to apathy but due to genuine apprehension of physical harm, making the invocation of writ jurisdiction not only permissible but necessary.
For the Respondent
The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, acknowledged the petitioner’s predicament but argued that writ jurisdiction should not be used as a substitute for statutory remedies. They maintained that the DV Act provides a comprehensive mechanism for protection orders, and the petitioner should be directed to approach the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act. However, the State did not contest the existence of a credible threat and conceded that police protection may be warranted if the threat is substantiated.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the notion that writ jurisdiction is an inappropriate forum for addressing domestic violence threats. It emphasized that Article 21 is not contingent upon the existence of a formal complaint or procedural compliance. The Court observed that the DV Act, while robust, assumes a level of agency and safety in approaching courts - conditions absent in cases of extreme intimidation. The Court held that when fear renders statutory remedies inaccessible, the High Court’s writ jurisdiction becomes a necessary safeguard.
"The right to life under Article 21 is not a theoretical right but a living one, and it cannot be denied merely because the victim is too terrified to approach a court under a specific statute."
The Court further noted that police authorities have a constitutional duty to protect citizens from imminent harm, regardless of whether a formal complaint has been filed. It directed the Station House Officer to conduct an objective, on-ground assessment of the threat perception, without requiring the petitioner to initiate formal proceedings first. The Court clarified that this direction is not a substitute for the DV Act but a temporary, protective measure pending the victim’s ability to access statutory remedies.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment significantly expands the scope of writ jurisdiction in domestic violence cases. Practitioners can now confidently advise female clients who are too fearful to approach DV courts to seek immediate protection through writ petitions under Article 226. The ruling establishes that fear alone, if credible and articulated, is sufficient to trigger the High Court’s protective jurisdiction. It also imposes a clear, non-discretionary duty on police to assess threats objectively, even in the absence of a formal complaint. However, the protection granted is interim and contingent upon threat assessment; it does not replace the need to pursue remedies under the DV Act. Future petitions must include specific, detailed assertions of fear and evidence of intimidation to avoid being dismissed as speculative. This precedent is particularly relevant in rural and semi-urban areas where access to legal aid and police responsiveness are inconsistent.
