PIL For Women Safety | 'Why Should Women Have To Go To Police Station To Lodge Complaint?' : Supreme Court Suggests Online Complaint System

During the hearing of a public interest litigation seeking pan-India guidelines for safety of women, the Supreme Court today asked the Union of India as to why there is no mechanism in place to enable women to lodge complaints online. Having such a system can resolve issues related to police station jurisdiction as well as eliminate need for women to physically go to police stations, the Court said.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh heard the matter and adjourned it in light of Union of India's request for time to file a counter-affidavit. Giving a time of 6 weeks, the bench asked the Union to file a comprehensive affidavit stipulating the stance of all concerned Ministries. It further called on the petitioner to seek suggestions from women lawyers across the country (especially those practicing before State High Courts) and to file the same in a collated manner.

"Ld. counsel who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents seeks and is granted 6 weeks' time to file the counter-affidavit...Meanwhile, the petitioner-Association will be well advised to interact with the women lawyers practicing in different parts of the country, especially those practicing in the state High Courts, and obtain their suggestions with reference to the local issues faced by the women in general. All those suggestions may then be collated and placed on record."

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani (for petitioner-Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association) submitted that all respondents had not responded to the petition following issuance of notice. Referring to a Times of India report, she raised two contentions - first, that even Uber rides are not safe for women, and second, that in a Bangalore harassment incident, a woman was forced to jump out of an autorickshaw but to lodge a complaint, her husband had to go from one police station to another on account of "jurisdictional issues".

Counsel for Union of India, on the other hand, contended that the prayers in the PIL were very wide in nature and sought time to file a counter-affidavit. Accepting the request for time, Justice Kant told the counsel that technicalities such as framing of prayer clauses shall not become an impediment, as some of the issues raised are practical. The judge also probed as to why there is no online mechanism in place to enable women to lodge complaints, which would resolve the jurisdictional issues as well as do away with the need for women to physically go to police stations.

"Also think of why we don't have online police stations? Any woman who wants to make a complaint, why she should be forced to go to police station? You should have a central agency where online complaints can go...which police station will be required to deal with it is your responsibility. You will refer it and inform the complainant that your complaint has been forwarded to so and so police station. This will save two things - one, why are they being compelled to go to police stations, and this confusion of jurisdictional issues, which ultimately is your responsibility to decide. Think of it", said Justice Kant.

Briefly stated, the PIL is filed by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association praying inter-alia for regulation of social behavior in public transport, ban on free online pornographic material and castration of persons convicted for sex offenses (against women and children).

The petitioner seeks a complete ban on online pornography and unfiltered obscenity on OTT platforms, claiming that easy access to pornographic material has a direct link with spurt in sexual offences across the country. Further, it seeks mandatory installation of CCTVs in workplaces, fast track trial of all cases pertaining to rape and sexual harassment of women, and prohibition on MPs/MLAs accused of crimes against women contesting elections until an acquittal order is passed.

"The Petitioner beseeches this Hon'ble Court to invoke the doctrine of parens patriae to safeguard the fundamental rights of women, children and the third gender in our nation, which encompass their right to safety, a secure workplace, adequate sanitation, personal dignity, bodily integrity, and a safe environment. It is humbly submitted that the Court bears an overarching obligation under the doctrine of parens patriae to serve as the protector and steward of its citizens' rights", reads the PIL.

In December, 2024, while issuing notice on the petition to Union and states, the Court had noted that some of the prayers sought were "barbaric" and might not get indulgence. In response, the petitioner-Association conceded that the prayers may be restricted as deemed fit by the Court.

Case Title: SUPREME COURT WOMEN LAWYERS ASSOCIATION Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(Crl.) No. 526/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order