Introduction

“Counsellors” under Indian law most often refer to the person(s) appointed or engaged by courts, Protection Officers or recognised service providers to attempt reconciliation, provide psycho‑social support, de‑escalate family violence, and assist courts in tailoring humane reliefs in domestic violence and family disputes. Though counselling is a key non‑adversarial tool in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) and in family‑law practice more broadly, the statutory framework leaves critical details—selection, qualifications, and standards of practice—undeveloped. This gap has immediate consequences for procedure, evidence and client strategy. This article explains the statutory scaffolding, day‑to‑day application in courts, relevant case law context, and practical litigation strategies for counsel.

Core Legal Framework

Primary statute
– Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA): the Act envisions a system of Protection Officers, service providers and courts working together to secure relief for aggrieved persons and expressly contemplates the involvement of counsellors/service‑providers. The Act gives Protection Officers a duty to coordinate and refer to service providers (including counselling and medical services) and empowers courts to shape remedies and direct appropriate assistance. The Act itself does not prescribe a uniform statutory definition of “counsellor” nor lay down minimum qualifications or a centralised mechanism for appointment.

Related statutory settings
– Family Courts Act, 1984: family courts routinely use counselling as part of settlement efforts; court rules and practice directions under the Act may provide for institutional counselling arrangements in different States.
– Criminal and civil procedure: Courts may order counselling or direct pre‑litigation counselling as an adjunct to orders under the Code of Criminal Procedure (e.g., when offences intersect with domestic disputes) or as part of civil settlement processes; however, there is no separate central statute governing court‑appointed counsellors’ qualifications.

Key point
– In short: the PWDVA (working with local rules and court practice) is the principal legislative source that enables a court/Protection Officer to involve counsellors, but the Act is silent on credentials and selection processes—those are typically governed by state rules, local service provider lists maintained by Protection Officers, court practice directions and, in some jurisdictions, NGOs and statutory welfare bodies.

Practical Application and Nuances

How counsellors arise in practice
– Initiation: Counselling is most frequently engaged in three ways:
1. Judicial order at the instance of an aggrieved person or on the court’s own motion when hearing an application under the PWDVA.
2. Referral by the Protection Officer who maintains an area list of service providers (shelters, legal aid, counselling centres) and recommends a counsellor.
3. Family Courts or Lok Adalats may require mandatory pre‑litigation counselling in matrimonial or maintenance disputes as part of settlement efforts.

• The typical order will: (a) direct counselling sessions for parties (often three to six sessions), (b) name a counsellor or direct the Protection Officer to nominate one from the service provider list, and (c) specify time lines and reporting obligations back to court.

What a counsellor is expected to do (day‑to‑day)
– Conduct an initial risk assessment for the aggrieved person (safety planning).
– Undertake separate and/or joint sessions to determine the likelihood of reconciliation, presence or absence of coercive control or ongoing risk, and resonance of economic or emotional dependence.
– Facilitate non‑threatening communication and, where appropriate, a mediated plan for behaviour change, residence, maintenance or phased reconciliation.
– Prepare a succinct written report to the Court to assist judicial decision‑making—usually stating (i) whether counselling was completed, (ii) whether reconciliation was feasible/attempted, (iii) observed risks, (iv) any suggested conditions for reconciliation (e.g., independent residence, monetary security, third‑party monitoring).
– Maintain confidentiality subject to safety concerns and court directions.

Evidentiary character of counselling reports
– Counsellor reports are not conclusive proof of facts; they ordinarily operate as assistance to the magistrate in exercising discretionary relief under the PWDVA. Their admissibility as evidence depends on the context and the content—purely opinionated or hearsay material can be challenged by opposing counsel. Courts treat counselling reports as part of the court’s fact‑finding toolbox but permit cross‑examination if the report is pressed as evidence or relied upon substantively by a party.

Concrete examples (practice scenarios)
1. Protection petition where immediate risk exists:
– Court should avoid using counselling as a dilatory step. Counsel for the aggrieved should resist any order that makes counselling a precondition for protection orders (application for protection or interim relief). Where risk is high, seek immediate interim protection; insist counselling be concurrent with protective measures.
2. Maintenance or marital dispute in Family Court:
– Court orders three sessions with a named counsellor from the Protection Officer’s list; the counsellor reports reconciliation possible subject to conditions (separate lock on family residence, periodic review). The court may craft a conditional residence/maintenance order with review dates, explicitly tying continued residence to compliance and supervision.
3. Repeat domestic‑assault with substance abuse:
– Request a counsellor with qualifications in addiction treatment or a clinical psychologist; if the Protection Officer only lists social counsellors, file an application seeking a specialist and provide reasons and supporting material.

Operational pitfalls and realities
– Selection ambiguity: Protection Officers prepare lists but courts rarely scrutinise the selection process or qualifications. That opens the door to ad hoc appointments (NGO volunteers, para‑counsellors).
– Quality variance: Counselling quality varies drastically—some counsellors are trained therapists; others are social workers with limited clinical skills.
– Coercion risks: Counselling in the absence of safety planning may be used to coerce reconciliation.
– Reporting shortcomings: Counsellor reports may lack factual specificity, be framed in vague terms (“parties reconciled amicably”) or omit risk indicators, reducing their utility.

Landmark Judgments

1. Sakshi v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518 (Supreme Court)

2. Principle: Recognised the systemic nature of violence against women and the need for institutional mechanisms for protection and support. The decision catalysed legislative and administrative reforms culminating in PWDVA 2005. Relevance: Courts must view domestic violence as a social problem requiring multi‑disciplinary responses (medical, legal, counselling), reinforcing the legitimacy of court‑ordered counselling as part of relief/rehabilitation.

3. Indra Sarma v. V.K. Vats & Anr., (2013) 15 SCC 755 (Supreme Court)

4. Principle: Clarified elements required to classify relationships as “in the nature of marriage” and elaborated on the scope of domestic violence remedies extending beyond conjugal bonds. Relevance: Where courts accept that parties are in domestic relationships, the range of protective, remedial and counselling measures under PWDVA can be invoked; counselling becomes part of the remedial package and not merely family mediation.

(Use in practice)
– Neither case addresses counsellor qualifications directly, but both underline judicial recognition of counselling and institutional mechanisms as legitimate parts of the protective ecosystem. High Courts have weighed in at state level on procedure and the Protection Officer’s duties. Practitioners should review local High Court rulings and State Rules under the PWDVA for jurisdiction‑specific controls on counsellor lists and standards.

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

For counsel for the aggrieved person
– Do not allow counselling to displace immediate relief:
– Always seek interim protection/residence/maintenance where risk exists; parallel counselling is permissible but cannot substitute for urgent protective orders.
– Seek specificity in orders:
– When the court orders counselling, ask for (a) named counsellor or categories (clinical psychologist, certified counsellor), (b) number of sessions and timelines, (c) terms of reference for the counsellor, and (d) a clear reporting requirement and timeframe.
– Demand transparency in selection:
– Request the Protection Officer to place on record the list of service providers and the basis for selection; ask the court to call for CVs/qualifications if the adversary relies on a counsellor’s report.
– Protect confidentiality and safety:
– Ensure counselling is done in a secure space, preferably with an NGO worker or legal aid present; insist on separate sessions for the aggrieved if required; specify that attendance is voluntary and records are confidential unless the court directs otherwise.
– Prepare to challenge or rely on reports:
– If the report is helpful, seek to admit it; if adverse or inadequately reasoned, seek the counsellor’s examination and test methodology. Cross‑examine on factual basis and observe whether the report relied on hearsay or unverified statements.

For counsel for the respondent
– Use counselling strategically but ethically:
– Where genuine rehabilitation is appropriate (e.g., substance abuse, anger issues), propose specialised counselling with objective milestones—this can assist in restoring relations or mitigating harsher remedies.
– Resist undue reliance on unqualified counsellors:
– If opposing party insists on a particular counsellor, probe qualifications and the process for selection; object if the appointment appears partisan or intended to delay proceedings.
– Preserve right to cross‑examine:
– If the court relies heavily on a counsellor’s report, seek the opportunity to cross‑examine and test the basis of conclusions and any factual inaccuracies.

Common pitfalls to avoid
– Allowing open‑ended counselling orders without time limits (creates delay).
– Accepting anonymous or unqualified counsellor reports without challenge.
– Treating counselling as a cure‑all—do not neglect legal remedies and safety planning.
– Failing to seek court directions on confidentiality and admissibility before sensitive material is disclosed.

Practical drafting templates (short, practitioner‑ready)
– Prayer for appointment with terms:
– “That this Hon’ble Court may direct the Protection Officer to appoint, within 7 days, a counsellor from the certified list who is a qualified clinical psychologist/social worker (minimum Master’s degree in Social Work/Clinical Psychology with two years’ experience in domestic violence counselling), to undertake a maximum of three individual sessions with the Applicant and, if deemed safe, one joint session. The counsellor shall submit a written report within 15 days of the final session to this Court detailing findings, recommendations and any safety concerns. Copies to be provided to both parties.”
– Request for qualification disclosure:
– “That the Protection Officer be directed to place on record the list of service providers and the curriculum vitae/qualifications of the nominated counsellor prior to commencement of counselling.”

Conclusion

Counsellors are an indispensable but institutionally under‑regulated element of India’s domestic‑violence and family dispute machinery. The PWDVA envisages their role but leaves selection, standards and professional accountability to local rules, Protection Officers and judicial direction. For practitioners, the essential skills are (1) ensuring counselling supplements — and does not delay — statutory relief and immediate safety measures; (2) securing clear orders on the identity, qualifications, scope and timelines of counselling; and (3) treating counselling reports as useful but challengeable material in evidence. Proactive drafting, insistence on transparency and an emphasis on specialist‑led counselling when required will materially improve client outcomes and guard against misuse of counselling as a procedural stalling tactic.