Supreme Court Issues Landmark Directives to Curb Honour Killings and Illegal Khap Panchayat Verdicts

SC Emphasizes Individual Liberty and Choice in Marriage, Orders State Governments to Implement Preventive, Remedial, and Punitive Measures Against Honour Crimes

In a monumental judgment dated March 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India took a firm stand against the social evil of honour killings and the illegal functioning of Khap Panchayats. The apex court underscored that the right of two adults to marry by their own choice, regardless of caste or religion, is a fundamental constitutional right protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court emphatically rejected the notion that family, community, or clan consent is necessary for marriage once two adults have mutually agreed to wed, stating that any infringement on this right is a violation of constitutional liberty and dignity.

Honour killings, the court observed, are not isolated incidents but part of a broader category of honour crimes that severely curtail personal freedoms and individual autonomy. These acts are rooted in feudal mindsets and a misplaced sense of “class honour” or “group thinking,” which the court declared has no legitimacy in a constitutional democracy. The court condemned Khap Panchayats and similar informal assemblies, stating that they have no authority to interfere with individuals’ fundamental rights or to impose punishments that are extrajudicial and illegal.

The petitioner, Shakti Vahini, a human rights organization, had approached the court seeking directions to the Union and State Governments for preventive, remedial, and punitive measures to combat honour crimes. The court acknowledged the growing incidence of honour killings, particularly in states like Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Western Uttar Pradesh, supported by National Crime Records Bureau data revealing 288 cases between 2014 and 2016.

The Supreme Court directed the State Governments to immediately identify districts and villages where honour killings or Khap Panchayat gatherings have been reported in the past five years. It mandated the Home Departments of the respective states to issue directives ensuring heightened vigilance by police officers in these areas, especially when inter-caste or inter-religious marriages are reported or planned.

Preventive measures include police intervention to discourage or prevent Khap Panchayat meetings that aim to condemn lawful marriages, deployment of police forces to prevent assemblies, and video documentation of any such gatherings to facilitate prosecution. If such meetings occur despite warnings, senior police officials must personally attend and warn participants of criminal liability for any harm caused to couples or their families.

In cases where police believe a Khap Panchayat assembly cannot be prevented or poses a threat, the District Magistrate or competent authority is to invoke prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and take actions including arrest of participants under Section 151 Cr.P.C.

The court also emphasized remedial measures such as immediate registration of FIRs under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (including Sections 141, 143, 503, and 506) against persons threatening couples or families involved in inter-caste or inter-religious marriages. It directed the establishment of safe houses in district headquarters to shelter vulnerable couples and families, under the supervision of District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police.

Further, the court mandated that District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police must handle complaints with sensitivity, verify the capacity of couples to marry as adults, and provide logistical support for marriages under police protection when necessary. The investigation of offences must be prompt and thorough, holding not just perpetrators but also Khap Panchayat members liable for conspiracy or abetment.

Importantly, the court issued punitive guidelines requiring departmental action against police and administrative officials who fail to prevent honour crimes or prosecute offenders promptly. Special cells comprising police officers and social welfare officials are to be created in every district to receive complaints and provide 24-hour helpline services for affected couples.

The court further ordered that all criminal cases related to honour killings or violence against couples be tried expeditiously in designated fast-track courts, preferably concluding within six months, including already pending cases.

The judgment reiterates that the Constitution of India does not tolerate any parallel justice system or social assembly that infringes on the fundamental rights of individuals. Honour killings are barbaric acts that destroy human dignity and liberty and must be stamped out decisively by the rule of law.

This ruling not only protects the right of adults to marry freely but also serves as a clarion call to states to intensify efforts against deep-rooted social evils, ensuring that constitutional guarantees of freedom, equality, and dignity prevail over outdated and unlawful notions of honour.

Statutory provisions

Articles 19, 21, and 32 of the Constitution of India; Indian Penal Code Sections 141, 143, 300, 302, 503, 506; Criminal Procedure Code Sections 144, 151; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Hindu Marriage Disabilities Removal Act, 1946; Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition on Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 992571