The Constitutional Pal

Critical(?) Analysis of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as PWDVA) is a landmark legislation enacted to address domestic violence in India, providing a comprehensive framework for protecting women from abuse. This critical analysis explores the Act's intent and provisions, the socio-cultural context of domestic violence, and the implications of narratives such as "false cases" on access to justice and the reporting of domestic violence by perpetuating harmful stereotypes about women and their credibility, potentially influencing judges' judgments and deterring survivors from seeking legal recourse.

Intent and Provisions of the PWDVA 2005

The primary intent of the PWDVA is to safeguard women from domestic violence in all its forms—physical, emotional, sexual, verbal, and economic. Recognizing domestic violence as a significant societal issue, the law aims to provide a civil remedy rather than criminal punishment. Key provisions include broadening the definition to encompass not only physical harm but also emotional, psychological, and economic abuse, ensuring a more inclusive understanding of violence. Women are entitled to reside in the shared household, regardless of ownership, which challenges patriarchal notions of home-ownership. The Act empowers courts to issue protection orders to prevent further abuse, offering immediate relief to survivors. Courts can order monetary compensation and grant custody of children to the survivor to reduce dependency on the abuser. Appointed under the Act, these officers assist survivors in accessing legal remedies and support systems.

The PWDVA reflects the legislature’s intent to provide a victim-centric approach, emphasizing restorative justice over retribution.

Social and Cultural Context of Gender-Based Violence in India

Domestic violence in India is deeply rooted in patriarchal norms and gender-based hierarchies that perpetuate male dominance and control. Women begin their journey of facing violence within their homes due to such entrenched cultural practices that uphold male authority and stigmatize female independence in the society. Many Indian families adhere to traditional roles that view women as subservient to male family members. Domestic violence is frequently normalized, dismissed as a "private matter," or justified as discipline of woman deemed stray. A significant proportion of Indian women remain financially dependent on male relatives, making it difficult to escape abusive relationships or seek legal recourse. Survivors of domestic violence often face societal ostracization and victim-blaming, which discourages reporting and seeking help. Practices such as dowry, honor-based violence, and son preference contribute to systemic oppression and violence against women.

The PWDVA attempts to challenge these cultural barriers by providing a legal framework that recognizes domestic violence as a public concern rather than a private issue.

The Implications of the 'False Cases' Narrative

A significant critique of the PWDVA revolves around the perception of its misuse, with allegations of women filing "false cases" against their partners or in-laws. While misuse of any law is possible, the disproportionate focus on false cases undermines the Act’s purpose and perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes. The narrative of "false cases" reinforces stereotypes that portray women as manipulative or deceitful. This biases societal and judicial attitudes, often resulting in skepticism toward survivors’ testimonies. Judges may become overly cautious, fearing misuse of the law, which can lead to undue scrutiny of survivors' claims. This risks denying justice to genuine victims. Studies and reports show that the incidence of false cases under the PWDVA is minimal compared to the actual prevalence of domestic violence. However, the narrative exaggerates the misuse, overshadowing the law's positive impact.

The "false cases" narrative not only distracts from the systemic issue of domestic violence but also stigmatizes women who seek justice, discouraging them from using the law for fear of being labeled as liars.

Impact on Access to Justice and Reporting of Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is an under-reported crime in India, with survivors often hesitant to come forward due to fear of retaliation, societal judgment, and lack of support. The narrative of "false cases" exacerbates these barriers, undermining the PWDVA's efficacy. Survivors may hesitate to report abuse, fearing disbelief or accusations of filing frivolous complaints. This perpetuates silence and enables abusers. The perception that courts are biased against male defendants creates undue pressure to prove claims, placing an additional burden on survivors. The fear of being ostracized or labeled as vengeful often prevents women from pursuing legal remedies. Many drop cases prematurely due to societal and judicial pressure.

Conversely, the PWDVA has encouraged many women to step forward by providing a structured framework for support and protection. However, the prevailing narrative of misuse threatens to dilute these gains by reinforcing cultural stigmas and institutional biases that brings us back to square one.

Encouraging Reporting OR Perpetuating Harmful Stereotypes?

The PWDVA’s strength lies in its potential to empower women and provide a lifeline to survivors of domestic violence. However, the narrative of misuse poses a dual threat. The Act’s comprehensive framework for protection and support has enabled many women to report abuse and seek redress. It has shifted the perception of domestic violence from a private issue to a public concern, creating avenues for justice and rehabilitation. Simultaneously, the focus on "false cases" undermines the credibility of women and reinforces patriarchal stereotypes. It portrays women as unreliable, influencing societal attitudes and judicial outcomes. The perpetuation of the "false cases" narrative can indeed be seen as a significant hindrance in the effective application of the PWDVA, especially considering that it is a relatively new legislation. This challenge is not unique to the PWDVA; it is a recurring issue faced by many progressive laws designed to protect vulnerable groups. When such laws are introduced, they often encounter resistance rooted in societal biases, cultural inertia, and misunderstandings about their intent. In the case of the PWDVA, the narrative of misuse disproportionately shifts focus from the protection of survivors to the potential harm to accused individuals, thereby undermining the law’s core purpose. This not only delays societal acceptance of the legislation but also reinforces barriers for those the law seeks to protect. Addressing these challenges requires continued efforts to raise awareness, educate stakeholders, and normalize the use of such laws as vital tools for justice rather than instruments of division.

Striking a balance requires prioritizing survivors’ access to justice while addressing allegations of misuse with objectivity, free from bias or prejudice. However, the current rise in misinformation about the alleged misuse of the PWDVA has led to a narrative that is increasingly preoccupied with perpetuating harmful stereotypes about women. This shift not only detracts from the law’s intent but also creates an environment where survivors feel further constrained by societal judgment.

By portraying women as manipulative or deceitful, this misinformation reinforces patriarchal norms and discourages them from coming forward to report abuse. It traps them in the "patriarchal trenches" of fear, silence, and societal expectation, undermining their ability to seek justice. The resultant inhibition not only suppresses their voices but also weakens the overall effectiveness of the PWDVA, reducing its potential to act as a transformative tool for gender justice.

Chilling Effect of “False Cases” Narrative?

The chilling effect, a term often used in legal and sociopolitical contexts, refers to the discouragement of individuals from exercising their rights due to fear of negative consequences.1 In the case of the PWDVA, the pervasive narrative of "false cases" has created a significant chilling effect on survivors of domestic violence.

Survivors who consider reporting abuse under the PWDVA may hesitate, fearing their claims will be dismissed as false or malicious. This fear is amplified by societal biases that often scrutinize women's motivations more harshly than men’s. The fear of being labeled a liar discourages many women from seeking legal protection, effectively silencing them.

The chilling effect directly impacts reporting rates for domestic violence. National and state-level studies in India consistently show that domestic violence is grossly under-reported.2 The false cases narrative exacerbates this issue, as women are deterred by the perception that their claims will not only be dismissed but could also subject them to social and legal retaliation.

Stumping the reporting habits further reinforces systemic disempowerment, where survivors of domestic violence are trapped in cycles of abuse. The reluctance to report stems from fear of disbelief, re-victimization, and lack of institutional support, further deepening their vulnerability.

Laws like the PWDVA are designed to empower survivors, but the chilling effect undermines their effectiveness. The exaggerated focus on misuse shifts attention from the core issue of domestic violence, eroding trust in the legal system and making survivors less likely to rely on it for protection.

Both the Act and the chilling effect also operate within a patriarchal framework where the violence against women takes place, where societal and institutional attitudes toward women are shaped by gender stereotypes. By perpetuating the idea that women misuse protective laws, patriarchal structures reinforce the belief that women are untrustworthy, further silencing survivors.

Survivors may internalize the stereotype that they will not be believed, leading them to remain in abusive relationships rather than risk public humiliation. Judges, police, and legal professionals influenced by the false cases narrative may inadvertently dismiss genuine cases, creating a feedback loop that further entrenches the chilling effect.

One rising demand through this narrative is criminalization of false allegations.
The recent push to criminalize false rape allegations, such as the proposed changes in Botswana, presents a complex issue in the context of gender-based violence and justice. In 2021, the government of Botswana moved to amend the Penal Code to criminalize the making of false sexual offense allegations. The intention behind this change is to address the growing concerns over false accusations and to serve as a deterrent.3 However, this shift has raised alarm among human rights activists who warn that it may discourage real survivors from reporting sexual violence, as the fear of facing criminal charges for false claims could deter them from coming forward. The introduction of such measures highlights a broader societal issue where the potential for misuse of the law (whether for domestic violence or sexual assault cases) is becoming a growing concern. In Botswana, as well as in other places, false accusation laws could inadvertently contribute to a "chilling effect" on the reporting of genuine cases, especially in societies where gender-based violence remains rampant but is still met with skepticism or hostility. Research suggests that survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault may internalize stereotypes about their credibility or the perceived consequences of their actions, which may compel them to avoid the legal system altogether to avoid further humiliation or punishment.4 Some other countries such as United States (particularly, California), United Kingdom5, Australia and Canada have similar provisions in place.

PWDVA does not directly criminalize false allegations; however, there have been rising concerns about misuse of the law in domestic violence and dowry harassment cases. Some legal experts argue for harsher penalties for false accusations, but such proposals have faced significant backlash, as they may deter legitimate survivors from seeking justice. In few judgements, there are scarce approaches to the chilling effect of such narratives that lay down how to deal with such situations such as expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which is often associated with domestic violence and dowry-related harassment cases. While addressing concerns of false claims, the Court laid down guidelines for handling such cases more cautiously. It specifically emphasized the need for proper investigation before the initiation of legal action and proposed the formation of Family Welfare Committees to scrutinize complaints before arrest or other legal actions were taken. This reflects a balance between preventing the misuse of the law and ensuring genuine victims are not discouraged from reporting their abuse.6

While it is essential to address potential misuse of any law, the emphasis on "false cases" disproportionately affects the credibility of women seeking justice. A balanced approach is necessary to preserve the integrity of the PWDVA while addressing concerns of misuse. Thorough and impartial investigations can help distinguish genuine cases from fabricated ones without undermining survivors' credibility. Public education initiatives can dispel myths about misuse and highlight the importance of protecting survivors' rights. Sensitizing judges and law enforcement to the dynamics of domestic violence can reduce bias and ensure fair adjudication of cases. Publishing accurate statistics on domestic violence cases and outcomes can counter misconceptions about widespread misuse.

Such measures can protect the rights of both survivors and those falsely accused, ensuring the law remains effective and just. Because in the long term, the chilling effect poses a serious barrier to justice for women. When survivors are discouraged from reporting abuse, it perpetuates a culture of silence around domestic violence, allowing abusers to act with impunity. The chilling effect also undermines the broader goals of the PWDVA, which include not only protecting women but also transforming societal attitudes toward gender-based violence. To mitigate the chilling effect efforts must be made to counter the false cases narrative through education and awareness campaigns that emphasize the low rate of false claims compared to the prevalence of domestic violence. Judges and legal professionals need training to recognize the dynamics of the chilling effect and address cases with a survivor-centric perspective. Providing accessible and non-judgmental support services can reduce the psychological and social barriers created by the chilling effect.

The PWDVA is a vital tool for addressing gender-based violence in India, offering survivors legal protection and support. However, its effectiveness is hindered by the cultural and institutional biases perpetuated by the "false cases" narrative.

While misuse of any law is a legitimate concern, the disproportionate emphasis on such cases perpetuates harmful stereotypes, deterring survivors from seeking justice and undermining the Act’s purpose. A more balanced approach—focused on empowering survivors, addressing societal stigma, and ensuring fair adjudication—can strengthen the PWDVA’s impact and foster a safer, more equitable society.

By fostering trust in legal systems and challenging patriarchal norms, the PWDVA can continue to be a cornerstone in the fight against domestic violence, ensuring justice and dignity for survivors.

Some Literatures

Audre Lorde's Sister Outsider houses an essay that lingers in my mind when I think, read and write about the plight of Indian women, especially in marital contexts. It is, of course, The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House [hereinafter referred to as TMTWNDTMH]7. TMTWNDTMH reminds us, with thunderous clarity, that seeking justice within structures designed to oppress will always be an exercise in strategic subversion, not passive acceptance. And nowhere is this truer than in the realm of Indian matrimonial and family law. The PWDVA, in its spirit, tries valiantly to build new scaffolding. It attempts to peel back the rotting wallpaper of “private matters” and exposes the cracked beams of patriarchy underneath. It seeks to make homes, those so-called sanctuaries, accountable spaces, not citadels of fear. Yet even as the ink dried on this legislation in 2005, the whisper campaigns had already begun:
"Women will misuse this."
"Families will be destroyed."
"Innocent men will suffer."

Let us not mince words: this backlash was not accidental. It was calculated. A patriarchal society is never more dangerous than when it feels its authority slipping, and the narrative of "false cases" has been wielded like a bludgeon to beat back progress. As Audre Lorde so powerfully cautioned, "For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master’s house as their only source of support." The PWDVA may have pierced the armor, but it still struggles to tear down the walls of patriarchal control, facing systemic resistance at every turn.

The "Weaponization" Myth: A Convenient Excuse

It is easier, far easier, to pretend that the victims have suddenly turned into villains than to confront the deep rot of domestic violence. Easier to imagine scheming wives than to admit that, perhaps, the foundations of the "great Indian family" are sometimes built atop the silent suffering of its women. The "weaponization" myth is seductive because it allows the majority to sleep peacefully at night. It allows neighbors, friends, judges, and even the police to say: "Ah, she must be lying." It is the oldest trick in the book, discredit the accuser, and it predates PWDVA by centuries, if not millennia. The uncomfortable, corporate-truth-bomb here is: the law is not being weaponized by women; it is being weaponized against them. And unless we call out this inversion for what it is—a strategic undermining of women's rights—we risk entrenching exactly the injustice the PWDVA sought to dismantle.

The Echo Chamber of Skepticism: Judiciary and Society

Now, make no mistake, I love the judiciary (I mean, when they’re good, they’re the rockstars of constitutional democracy). But let’s be blunt: our courts are not immune to societal biases. Judges are human beings first. They are molded by the same narratives, the same dinner-table conversations, the same WhatsApp forwards that drip-feed suspicion against survivors. This expectation that survivors must constantly validate their suffering and educate an unwilling society is, in Lorde's words, "Women of today are still being called upon to stretch across the gap of male ignorance and to educated men as to our existence and our needs. This is an old and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with the master’s concerns." Survivors are not just fighting for justice, they are fighting against a societal ignorance that demands their endless labor.

What happens when a judge, sitting atop a mountain of discretion, already half-believes that many women fabricate claims?
You create procedural hurdles that are not legally required.
You scrutinize evidence more harshly than necessary.
You set bail conditions that signal disbelief.

Justice that should flow swiftly becomes a slow, agonizing drip, forcing survivors to wait, to plead, to break down. This, my dear friends, is not justice delayed; it is justice strategically discouraged.

The Dangers of Legislative Overreach: Criminalizing "False Allegations"

Here lies another dangerous fork in the road: the recent calls (in India and elsewhere) to criminalize "false allegations" more aggressively.

On the surface, it seems reasonable. After all, justice should cut both ways, no? False complaints should have consequences, yes? But look closer. Peel back that "common sense" rhetoric.

Criminalizing false allegations too broadly will not protect innocents; it will terrify genuine survivors into silence. It will make domestic violence a riskier thing to report than to endure.

If we go down that road, every woman who thinks about filing a complaint will first have to ask herself:
"What if they don't believe me?"
"What if they jail me instead?"
"What if my bruises, my broken spirit, my medical reports are still not enough?"

A Hardheaded, Heart-Forward Approach

The chilling effect will no longer be an invisible fog; it will be a full-blown winter. We need a multi-pronged, practical, battle-hardened approach—because lofty ideals alone won't save women trapped behind closed doors.

Here’s what we must do:

Because here’s the deal: protecting against false cases must never become more important than protecting against real violence. That way lies madness. That way lies the death of faith in law itself. In conclusion—and let me say it plain—the PWDVA is not perfect. It needs better implementation, stronger infrastructure, and more survivor-centered approaches. But it is still a lighthouse in a storm, not the storm itself. It is not women's credibility that threatens the sanctity of the home. It is violence that does. And if we forget that, if we allow fear to trump justice, we do not merely betray the survivors of today, we betray the very idea of India we claim to cherish. So yes, TMTWNDTMH. But the master's walls? They’re already cracking. And with persistence, courage, and a refusal to be silenced, we will tear them down. Because the foundations of injustice tremble at the sound of truth spoken out loud.

Some Relevant Updates

  1. For Every Instance Of S.498A IPC Misuse, There Are Hundreds Of Genuine Domestic Cruelty Cases: Supreme Court

  2. Supreme Court commutes death penalty of man who murdered wife and 4 children, raped daughter

Footnotes:

  1. Jonathon Penney, Understanding Chilling Effects, SSRN Electronic Journal, 10.2139/ssrn.3855619 (2021).↩

  2. A. Raj, The Unsafe Home: An Analysis of Reported Domestic Violence in India (2019).↩

  3. New Rape Laws to Criminalize False Allegations, MMegiOnline, https://www.mmegi.bw/news/new-rape-laws-to-criminalise-false-allegations/news (last visited Dec. 14, 2024).↩

  4. Baboki Jonathan Dambe, A Double-Edged Sword? The Criminalization of False Rape Accusations in Botswana, Statute Law Review, Vol. 45, Issue 1, Apr. 2024, hmae019, https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmae019.↩

  5. Lisa Avalos, Prosecuting Rape Victims While Rapists Run Free: The Consequences of Police Failure to Investigate Sex Crimes in Britain and the United States, 23 Mich. J. Gender & L. 1 (2016).↩

  6. Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2017 SC 3869.↩

  7. You can read it here.↩