Following the gruesome Delhi gang rape case of December 2012, to extend solidarity to women survivors of gender-based violence (GBV), ActionAid Association, a nongovernmental organisation, envisioned an independent, unconditional safe space for survivors. In 2014, Gauravi, India’s first one-stop crisis centre for women, was founded to offer integrated support to women survivors of GBV under one roof. This included access to legal services, dignified medical examinations, psycho-social counselling and safe shelter. In later years, the transition of Gauravi into a state-run and funded Sakhi One Stop Centre (OSC) under the umbrella government scheme called Mission Shakti, highlighted complexities in upholding women’s constitutional rights within institutions that conform to prevalent state ideological narratives. In matters of women asserting their agency in choosing their spouses or romantic partners, the paternalistic tendencies of state-run institutions influenced the support services, claiming to act in women’s best interest and ensure their safety.

In 2023, Bharti (name changed), a 27-year-old Hindu woman, eloped with her Muslim male partner. After a missing complaint was filed by her parents, and the involvement of a Hindu vigilante group forced the District Collector to place Bharti in OSC’s shelter home for her safety and to prevent potential communal unrest. Bharti kept questioning her placement in the shelter home without a valid reason. The situation was further politicised when the then Member of Parliament from Bhopal constituency visited the OSC and took her to the screening of a propaganda movie on the fabricated narrative of love jihad. She was later forced to leave with her parents, and with several institutions at play, OSC’s staff was unable to take the obvious legal route of following the OSC protocols to let Bharti leave at her will as she was an adult and sane woman. She who eloped again, never sought OSC’s help.

As seen in Bharti’s case, the OSC staff, lacking independent authority, are compelled to comply with the actions of state institutions. Adding to these biases, the patriarchal and paternalistic inclinations of the OSC staff themselves, limit them from acting as per the wishes of the women. The staff habitually ends up perceiving or framing a woman’s decision to marry or be in a relationship with a particular man as appropriate or not. As described in the case below, these perceptions are often based on the religion, caste, financial status, education, etc, of the man in question, largely ensuring the woman’s decision is in the best interest, especially when she is deciding to go against her family.

When a 21-year-old, Tanu (name changed) a science graduate, eloped to marry her childhood friend from a lower caste, she found herself involuntarily living in the OSCs shelter home for ten days. Tanu got married as per Hindu rituals, while her marriage was a valid in the eyes of the law, the family’s pressure, communal dynamics and interference by local politicians made it hard for her to leave the OSC to be with her husband. The ‘missing persons’ complaint filed by Tanu’s parents, became a tool to track her and pressure her to return home and conform to traditional expectations. OSC’s staff in Tanu’s case were inept to act independently since the matter was being handled by the local police, whose concern was to diffuse the threat of inter-caste violence rather than securing Tanu’s rights. OSCs function in coordination with other state institutions like the police, women and child development department, State Women Commission (SCW) and Child Welfare Commission (CWC), courts and hospitals. Such convergence and provision of services under one roof is intended to enhance accessibility for survivors, often becomes a roadblock, as women must navigate a web of clearances and permissions from each institution, making them dependent and limiting their freedom to leave at will. These protocols, especially in matters of inter-caste and religious romantic partnerships and marriages, tend to become politicised and a surveillance tool.

The urgent need to reimagine what justice looks like for women, rests on separating it from state scrutiny. It is crucial that OSCs can take independent decisions with authority. Moralistic control that overrides women’s choice to avoid social disruptions, fails to offer the genuine support women seek, in matters as fundamental as the right to marry by their choice. To not reduce OSC as a mere shelter home, it is required that the staff is trained in upholding rights-based frameworks, building accountability against coercion, and ensuring that a woman’s voice, not her family’s, not the community’s, is at the centre of all decision-making. Safe spaces cannot coexist with social control. They are, and must remain, places where women’s choices are respected, even when they unsettle the social order.