Which of the following is/are definitely TRUE about the courts for women?

(A) Family courts in Maharashtra and special courts for women in the other states have a common ideological base.

(B) Special courts for women in Delhi have been dealing exclusively with rape cases since 2006.

(C) Karnataka state is not in favour of special courts for women.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

In the debates following the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women observed a few days ago, some critical issues have come to the fore. Is it time to advocate for a completely separate apparatus of courts, law enforcement mechanisms and laws for women? What are the strengths and limits of such a proposal?
The issue of separate courts for women or family disputes has been a subject of debate for many years. A number of states have already set up special courts for women, including Maharashtra, with proposals pending in Karnataka and Delhi. These courts have taken on different incarnations at the state level with the Maharashtra courts designated as family courts to deal with family disputes and matrimonial matters; the Delhi courts are intended to deal exclusively with rape cases. However, the idea behind the special courts is to deal speedily with atrocities against women.
In 2006, a Bill to set up special courts for women was introduced in the Lok Sabha. The courts are intended to deal primarily with offences of rape, criminal assault, mental injury and sexual harassment against women. The courts are to be presided over by a chief judge, with additional judges appointed depending on the requirement in specific cases, and at least half of the judges’ posts are to be reserved for women.
The idea behind these special courts is that they will provide speedy justice to women and be women-friendly as well. These courts are also intended to provide a more private space for women, especially to rape victims who are frequently traumatised by the trial process that currently exists.
The idea of separate women police cells has also been mooted from time to time. The centre has been advising state governments regarding to steps that need to be taken, especially at the level of law enforcement, to afford greater protection to women and in particular to prevent crimes against them. These advisories include gender sensitisation of the police, adopting appropriate measures for swift and effective punishment to public servants found guilty of custodial violence against women, minimizing delays in investigations of murder, rape and torture of women and setting up ‘crimes against women cells’ in districts where they do not exist.
The National Commission for Women has also undertaken visits to various states to review the status of women and conduct its own investigations in certain cases of serious incidents of crime against women. The commission’s findings indicate that the level of sensitivity and care with which crimes against women are handled is woefully inadequate. It has also observed that the filing of FIRs, even in acutely abusive or violent cases,  continues to be a problem. The setting up of women police cells is one of the ways in which we can alleviate these problems.

While proposals for separate courts, police cells and specific laws for women are demands that women themselves are making, there is a need to be alert to the ways in which such initiatives might actually boomerang. Addressing women’s issues of violence in a separate court structure could sequester women’s issues into a dark corner, where reports of violence and abuse become muted. The role of the media in bringing the spotlight to bear on issues of violence has been crucial.