Supreme Court Directs Measures to Curb Honour Killings: Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India (2018)

Date of the Judgment: March 27, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 248
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J
Can the choice of an individual to marry be suppressed in the name of family or community honor? The Supreme Court of India, in this landmark judgment, addressed the critical issue of honour killings and other forms of violence perpetrated by groups like Khap Panchayats. The Court emphasized that the choice of an individual in matters of marriage is an integral part of their liberty and dignity, which cannot be violated by any extra-constitutional body. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, with the opinion authored by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

Case Background

The case originated from a Writ Petition filed by Shakti Vahini, an organization that conducted a research study on honour killings in Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner highlighted the increasing trend of honour killings in these regions and the fear it instilled in young people intending to marry against the wishes of their families or communities. The petition sought directions to the State and Central Governments to take preventive measures, formulate action plans, and establish special cells for the safety of couples. The core issue was the violation of fundamental rights due to the actions of groups that impose punishments in the name of class or community honor. The petitioner contended that these groups often act as parallel law enforcement agencies, meting out cruel punishments and instilling fear among those who exercise their choice to marry.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court heard the petition filed by Shakti Vahini, which sought measures to curb honour killings. The Union of India, along with various State Governments, filed counter-affidavits detailing their stands and actions taken. The Union of India stated that it was considering amending the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or enacting a separate law to address honour killings, and had sought responses from the States on the proposed ‘Prohibition of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances Bill’. Several States, including Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan, acknowledged the issue and outlined measures taken to protect couples and prosecute offenders. Some States also denied the prevalence of honour killings in their regions. An intervention application was filed by “Manushi Sanghatan,” representing several Khap Panchayats, which contested the petitioner’s findings and the need for a new law. The Court considered the submissions and affidavits of all parties before issuing its judgment.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following legal provisions and concepts:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. The Court emphasized that the freedom to choose a life partner is an intrinsic part of this right.
• Sections 300 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections define murder and prescribe punishment for it. The Court noted that honour killings are treated as murder under these provisions.
• The Hindu Marriage Act: The Court clarified that this Act does not prohibit sagotra (same clan) or inter-caste marriages.
• The Hindu Marriage Disabilities Removal Act, 1946: This Act expressly declared the validity of marriages between Hindus belonging to the same ‘gotra’ or ‘pravara’ or different sub-divisions of the same caste.
• Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition on Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act): The court noted that this act is a complete code for preventing sex determination and female foeticide and has nothing to do with the institution of marriage.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

• Petitioner (Shakti Vahini):
  • ✓ Honour killings are a growing menace, particularly in Haryana, Punjab, and Western Uttar Pradesh.
  • ✓ These killings are often perpetrated by groups like Khap Panchayats, who act as extra-constitutional bodies.
  • ✓ These groups impose punishments based on their own notions of class or community honor, violating fundamental rights.
  • ✓ There is a need for preventive measures, action plans, and special cells to protect couples.
  • ✓ The State has failed to effectively implement the action plan to curb honour killings.
• Union of India:
  • ✓ Honour killings are treated as murder under the IPC.
  • ✓ The responsibility to address honour killings primarily lies with the State Governments.
  • ✓ The Central Government is considering amending the IPC or enacting a separate legislation.
  • ✓ Consultation with the State Governments is necessary for policy decisions.
  • ✓ Advisories have been issued to State Governments to prevent crimes against women.
• State Governments (Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, etc.):
  • ✓ They have taken measures to protect couples and prosecute offenders.
  • ✓ Some States denied the prevalence of honour killings in their regions.
  • ✓ They expressed willingness to abide by guidelines issued by the Court.
  • ✓ They have created cells for crime against women.
• Intervenor (Manushi Sanghatan on behalf of Khap Panchayats):
  • ✓ Khap Panchayats are not responsible for honour killings.
  • ✓ The proposed bill is unnecessary and could be misused to harass local communities.
  • ✓ Existing penal provisions are sufficient to address the issue.
  • ✓ Khap Panchayats are committed to spreading awareness of permissibility of inter-community and inter-caste marriages.
  • ✓ They also tell people that “Sapinda” and “Sagotra” marriages have no sanction of law.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue addressed by the Court was:

• Whether the actions of Khap Panchayats and similar groups, which impose punishments in the name of class or community honor, violate the fundamental rights of individuals, particularly their right to choose a life partner.

The court also dealt with the following sub-issues:

• The need for preventive, remedial, and punitive measures to curb honour killings and related violence.
• The role of the State in protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens, particularly in cases of inter-caste and inter-religious marriages.
• The validity and legality of the actions of Khap Panchayats and similar groups.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering all the submissions and authorities, issued the following directions:

The Court also considered the authorities as follows:

• The Court relied on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. [CITATION], Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu [CITATION], and other cases to emphasize that inter-caste and inter-religious marriages are valid and that honour killings are barbaric acts.
• The Court also referred to the 242nd Report of the Law Commission of India, which highlighted the problem of honour killings and the need for a separate law.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a profound concern for the protection of individual liberties and the rule of law. The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• ✓ Constitutional Rights: The Court emphasized that the right to choose a life partner is an integral part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
• ✓ Dignity and Choice: The Court highlighted the importance of individual dignity and the freedom to make choices without coercion. It stated that the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of their dignity and cannot be eroded.
• ✓ Rule of Law: The Court stressed that the rule of law must prevail and that no extra-constitutional body can take the law into its own hands. It condemned the actions of Khap Panchayats and similar groups as illegal and unacceptable.
• ✓ Social Justice: The Court recognized the need for social justice and equality and stated that the State has an obligation to protect the rights of vulnerable groups, including couples who choose to marry against the wishes of their families or communities.
• ✓ Preventive Measures: The Court recognized the need for preventive measures to curb honour killings and other forms of violence. It issued detailed directives for the State Governments and law enforcement agencies to take proactive steps to prevent such crimes.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations. It firmly rejected the arguments of the Khap Panchayats and emphasized the need to protect the fundamental rights of individuals. The Court’s decision was based on a clear understanding of the constitutional principles and the need to uphold the rule of law.

The Court’s decision was unanimous.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• ✓ The Court emphasized the importance of individual autonomy and the right to choose a life partner, stating that “Assertion of choice is an insegregable facet of liberty and dignity.”
• ✓ The Court condemned honour killings as “barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons who deserve harsh punishment.”
• ✓ The Court highlighted that “the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The choice of an individual to marry is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution.
• ✓ Khap Panchayats and similar groups cannot take the law into their own hands and impose punishments in the name of honor.
• ✓ State Governments and law enforcement agencies must take proactive measures to prevent honour killings and protect couples who choose to marry against the wishes of their families or communities.
• ✓ The judgment has significant implications for future cases involving honour killings and related violence. It reinforces the importance of individual liberties and the rule of law.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

I. Preventive Steps:

• ✓ State Governments must identify districts, sub-divisions, and villages where honour killings have been reported.
• ✓ Home Secretaries should issue directives to Superintendents of Police to be extra cautious in cases of inter-caste or inter-religious marriages.
• ✓ Police officers must inform their superiors about proposed Khap Panchayat gatherings.
• ✓ Deputy Superintendents of Police should interact with Khap Panchayats and prevent such meetings.
• ✓ If meetings cannot be prevented, video recording of the discussions should be done.
• ✓ District Magistrates/Sub-Divisional Magistrates should issue preventive orders under the Cr.P.C.
• ✓ The Home Department of the Government of India must work with State Governments to sensitize law enforcement agencies.
• ✓ An institutional machinery with the necessary coordination of all the stakeholders should be set up.

II. Remedial Measures:

• ✓ Local police must lodge an FIR if a Khap Panchayat passes a diktat against a couple or family.
• ✓ Superintendents of Police/Deputy Superintendents of Police should ensure effective investigation.
• ✓ Security must be provided to the couple/family, and they may be moved to a safe house.
• ✓ District Magistrates/Superintendents of Police must deal with complaints with sensitivity.
• ✓ Preliminary inquiries must be conducted by an officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police.
• ✓ FIRs must be registered against those threatening the couple.

III. Punitive Measures:

• ✓ Failure by police or district officials to comply with the directions will be considered negligence and will be subject to departmental action.
• ✓ Disciplinary action must be taken against officials who fail to prevent incidents or promptly apprehend culprits.
• ✓ State Governments must create Special Cells in every district to receive complaints of harassment of inter-caste marriage couples.
• ✓ These Special Cells must create a 24-hour helpline.
• ✓ Criminal cases related to honour killing must be tried in designated Fast Track Courts, with trials to be completed within six months.

The Court directed that these measures be implemented within six weeks and compliance reports be filed.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment does not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the choice of an individual to marry is a fundamental right protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and any interference with this right by extra-constitutional bodies like Khap Panchayats is illegal. This judgment reinforces the position of law that inter-caste and inter-religious marriages are valid and that honour killings are barbaric acts. It provides clear guidelines for the State to prevent such crimes and protect the rights of individuals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India is a landmark decision that reaffirms the fundamental rights of individuals to choose their life partners and condemns honour killings and related violence. The Court’s detailed directives for preventive, remedial, and punitive measures provide a roadmap for the State Governments and law enforcement agencies to curb this menace and ensure the safety and security of couples who choose to marry against the wishes of their families or communities. The judgment underscores the importance of individual liberties and the rule of law in a democratic society.