Designated MP/MLA Courts Competent To Try Domestic Violence Cases Against Elected Representatives: Delhi High Court

"Designated MP/MLA Court continues to be a regular Court of Sessions or ACJM exercising jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C. (now BNSS)... this designation relates to administrative allocation of cases, and not to creation of a separate class of court outside the ordinary criminal court structure," Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, held that proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act against sitting or former MPs and MLAs are maintainable before the designated special courts.

A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that such designated courts remain "Magisterial Courts" under the statutory framework, and the administrative assignment of cases for elected representatives does not strip them of their jurisdiction to grant civil reliefs under the DV Act. The Court emphasized that while PWDV Act remedies are predominantly civil, they are adjudicated by Criminal Courts following the procedure of the CrPC/BNSS.

The case involved a matrimonial dispute between Raghuraj Pratap Singh (a sitting MLA from Uttar Pradesh) and his wife, Bhanvi Kumari Singh. Following matrimonial discord, the wife filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act. Although initially filed before the Saket Courts, the application was moved to the designated MP/MLA Court at Rouse Avenue citing High Court notifications regarding cases against elected representatives. The husband challenged the summoning order, arguing that a special "criminal" court lacked territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over "civil" domestic violence proceedings.

The primary question before the court was whether proceedings arising out of an application filed by a wife under Section 12 of the PWDV Act against her husband, a sitting MLA, must be instituted before the jurisdictional Magistrate or the designated special court for MPs/MLAs. The court also examined if the civil nature of DV Act reliefs ousts the jurisdiction of a court designated primarily for criminal trials of elected representatives.

Statutory Definition Of 'Magistrate' Under PWDV Act

The Court began by examining Section 2(i) of the PWDV Act, which defines a 'Magistrate' as a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or a Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the CrPC. The bench noted that the legislature consciously vested jurisdiction in criminal magistrates even for civil-natured reliefs like protection and residence orders.

The bench observed that "the legislature has vested jurisdiction under the PWDV Act in a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or a Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C. (now BNSS) in the area concerned." This indicates that the forum is inherently a criminal court despite the nature of the remedy.

Special MP/MLA Courts Are Not A Separate Statutory Class

Addressing the Petitioner’s argument that special courts are only for "criminal cases," the Court clarified that these courts were created through administrative orders for the purpose of expeditious disposal. Justice Sharma noted that a Court designated for adjudicating matters pertaining to sitting and former MPs/MLAs is not a separate statutory court created under any special law.

The Court held that "the designated MP/MLA Court continues to be a regular Court of Sessions or ACJM... The only distinction is that, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and administrative orders of this Court, criminal cases involving sitting and former MPs/MLAs have been assigned to such Courts."

PWDV Act Is An Amalgamation Of Civil And Criminal Remedies

The Court acknowledged that while remedies under Sections 18 to 22 (monetary relief, custody, residence) are predominantly civil, the Act contains an "amalgamation" of rights. It pointed out that Section 31 of the PWDV Act makes the breach of a protection order a cognizable and non-bailable offence.

"The scheme of the Act reflects a combination of civil remedies, and criminal enforcement mechanisms."

Justice Sharma reasoned that since the statute contemplates criminal consequences for breaches, it is appropriate for the Magistrate presiding over the MP/MLA court to handle the matter. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal to reiterate that DV Act applications are entertained by Criminal Courts.

Avoiding Multiplicity Of Proceedings And Conflict Of Orders

A key rationale for the judgment was the practical consequence of bifurcating proceedings. The Court observed that if a Section 12 application was kept in an ordinary court while a breach under Section 31 (being a criminal offence by an MLA) was moved to a special court, it would lead to inconsistent proceedings.

The bench noted that "such an interpretation would result in the possibility of inconsistent proceedings before different courts arising out of the same dispute... The legislative intent reflected in Section 31(2) - that the same Magistrate should, as far as practicable, continue with the matter - would also stand defeated."

"A construction and interpretation of law, which avoids such procedural complications and ensures continuity of proceedings, deserves to be preferred."

No Prejudice Caused By Special Court Jurisdiction

Finally, the Court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Both the Saket Court and the Rouse Avenue Court are presided over by competent Magistrates in Delhi. The administrative arrangement for centralized adjudication of cases against elected representatives was intended to ensure public confidence and time-bound justice.

The Court concluded that "the nature of reliefs available under the PWDV Act, the procedure governing the proceedings, and the appellate or revisional remedies available to the parties remain unchanged merely because the matter is being dealt with by the designated MP/MLA Court."

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the designated MP/MLA Court (ACJM) at Rouse Avenue has the jurisdiction to entertain domestic violence complaints against elected representatives. The Court clarified that the special court remains a "Magistrate" under the PWDV Act and that the administrative allocation of such cases does not violate the statutory scheme or cause prejudice to the parties.

Date of Decision: 30 May 2026