Gender-neutral domestic violence protection: words "adult male" struck down as discriminatory and severed from the statute.

The Supreme Court held that the words "adult male" in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 created an unconstitutional and discriminatory restriction because domestic violence, shared households and domestic relationships are not confined to male perpetrators. The Court found the exclusion of female relatives and non-adult persons lacked a rational nexus with the Act's protective purpose and was inconsistent with its gender-neutral scheme. It further held that reading down could not rewrite the clear phrase, but the offending words were severable. The words "adult male" and the consequential proviso were struck down, expanding the definition of "Respondent" to preserve the Act's remedial operation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the words "adult male" in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the consequential proviso were constitutionally valid, or whether they were liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The statutory scheme, objects and reasons, preamble and operative provisions showed that the Act was intended to afford effective protection against domestic violence of any kind and that domestic relationships, shared households and domestic violence are not confined to male perpetrators. The definition of "Respondent" in Section 2(q), by restricting proceedings to an adult male person, created an anomalous and discriminatory exclusion of female relatives and also of non-adult persons who may aid, abet, evict, or otherwise participate in domestic violence. This restriction had no intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of the legislation and was inconsistent with the gender-neutral character of the definitional and remedial provisions. The Court also held that reading down could not be used to rewrite a clear statutory phrase, but that the offending words could be severed where the remainder of the provision and the Act would continue to operate effectively.

Conclusion: The words "adult male" in Section 2(q) were struck down as unconstitutional, and the proviso to Section 2(q) also fell with the deletion. The definition of "Respondent" was thereby expanded to support the Act's protective purpose, and the appeal succeeded.

---