As the Centre prepares to fast track the process on the proposed legislation against “honour killings”, an important question — whether the law will cover all past cases of such crimes — has arisen from the “vague definition” left by legislature in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on its retrospective applicability.
The question arises in the light of the Supreme Court’s recent notice to the government on the applicability of the “Domestic Violence Act”, aimed at curbing the crimes against women, which is a crime very close to the “honour killings’.
The Supreme Court notice to the government assumes significance in view of a petition raising the question on retrospective applicability of the “Domestic Violence Act” notified by the Centre on October 26, 2006 but caught in legal quagmire immediately with different high courts giving different interpretations to its application to the past cases of the domestic crimes.
Referring of the matter to a larger bench by the apex court to give a correct definition of the law, raised an important question whether our lawmakers were “lacking legislative acumen” in enacting the laws on “complex” social issues and were leaving wide gaps in making their enforcement difficult by courts from the very beginning and leading to multiple interpretations.
Though the high courts of Madras, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh had given different interpretations regarding applicability of the law to the past cases, all of them, however, were unanimous in their view that the definition on this aspect had been left “vague” by the legislature.
Since the Supreme Court would be defining the law on this important aspect, the top court has sought an affidavit from the government, expecting it to explain whether the “intention” of legislature was to make the enactment applicable to the past domestic violence against women when the issue was debated in Parliament.
The Supreme Court poser also assumes significance in the wake of the government’s proposal to bring a plethora of amendments in the existing laws to combat the crime of “honour killings” arising out of equally “complex” social issues.
It would be interesting to see whether the government would take cue from the Supreme Court notice on the applicability of the “Domestic Violence Act” and take a greater care to make its applicability to all past cases of “honour killings” explicitly by bridging all the possible loopholes. The Delhi high court observation would be a guiding factor to the government as it has said that “the cardinal principle of construction of every statue is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation.”