Author- Sanika Tilekar, Navalmal Firodia Law College

CASE DETAILS

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

Shakti Vahini filed a petition under article 32 in the Supreme Court seeking directions from the state and the central government to take preventive steps to prevent honour crimes to tackle honour crimes and to submit a national plan and a state plan of action to minimise the crimes of such natures. The respondent filed the counter affidavit to the NGO stating that the honour killing is murder under section 300 and is punishable under section 302 moreover it is the responsibility of the states to deal with the honour killings and the Central Government is engaging with various union territories for considering proposal either to make amendments in the IPC or to make a separate legislation for addressing honour killings issues. Later on union government filed an affidavit and it is stated that there working on a new law called the prohibition of interference with the freedom of the Matrimonial Alliances Bill however this matter falls under the concurrent list due to which they need permission from the state government as well to enforce this law. To this affidavit, the 15 states and the union territories gave their positive responses and letters few more States supported the bill however Haryana denied allegations of election and Jharkhand asserted that honour killings are not common in their state.

Factual Background of the Case

The petition has been filed under article 32 by Shakti Vahini NGO to the state and Central Government to take preventive steps to stop honour crimes and to submit a National plan and state plan for the action to curb crimes of such nature. Later, the NGO researched honour killing and the result is it was found that honour killing is on the rise in the states of Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh and Punjab. Due to the social pressure, the people are taking the law into their own hands and giving the punishment to the people who are disturbing the honour of their families. The punishment is nothing but the killing of human beings it can be either a man or woman who has disregarded their honour as per their community by marrying another person without the choice of their parrots hence it is violating human rights and fundamental rights. Moreover, it is also seen that there is a patriot monarch due to which the woman has to face many societal pressures and her act is considered an honour of the family. Due to this women become the victims of the patriarchal monarch where male dominance is high over women. An honour killing can refer to a crime such as loss of virginity outside marriage or premarital pregnancy, refusing an arranged marriage, asking for a divorce, etc cetera from the woman’s side.e

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• Do the elders of the family have the right that if the girl doesn’t get married as per their wish then do they have a right to kill them because there violating their customers?
• Violation of human rights and aarticles21 and 19

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that

Khap Panchayaisre violated articles 19 and 21 of the constitution which guarantee freedom of choice and the right to life and liberty. It also states that the state has failed to act effectively to curb crimes, and the existing laws are insufficient to address such crimes

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Respondent submitted that
2. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that

It stated that there is no connection between the honour killings and the Khappanchayats as they didn’t find any evidence regarding it and it also opposed the prohibition of interference with the freedom of the matrimonial alliance’s bill

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Section 300 – Murder
• Article 19 – “to assemble peaceably and without arms; to form associations or unions or co-operative societies to  move freely throughout the territory of India;
• to freedom of speech and expression;”[1]

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

The supreme court of India held that khap panchayats are illegal and don’t have the authority to take the law into their own hands. if a crime is committed, such groups or individuals should file a complaint in the police station rather than punishing others themselves. These groups or individuals are not entitled to interfere with or affect the fundamental rights of others such as right to life, choice under article 21 and 19 of the constitution. the court further emphasized that honour killings are unjustified and is crime under Indian penal code. anyone committing such acts will be held legally liable.

GUIDELINES

1. 1. “The State Governments should forthwith identify Districts, Sub-Divisions and/or Villages where instances of honour killing or assembly of Khap Panchayats have been reported in the recent past, e.g., in the last five years.”
   2. “The Secretary, Home Department of the concerned States shall issue directives/advisories to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned Districts for ensuring that the charge of the Police Stations of the identified areas are extra cautious if any instance of inter-caste or inter-religious marriage within their jurisdiction comes to their notice.”

• “If information about any proposed gathering of a Khap Panchayat comes to the knowledge of any police officer or any officer of the District Administration, he shall forthwith inform his immediate superior officer and also simultaneously intimate the jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police.”
• “On receiving such information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (or such senior police officer as identified by the State Governments concerning restrict) shall immediately interact with the members of the Khap Panchayat and impress upon them that convening of such meeting/gathering is not permissible in law and to eschew from going ahead with such a meeting.[2]”

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

 The court commented that the protection of human rights is a fundamental aspect of the Indian constitution. It emphasized that any violation of human rights undermines the principles of human rights undermines the principle of fairness, equity, proportionate justice, freedom, and dignity, which are the essence of constitutional values. Consequently, the court recommended that the legislature enact a specific law to address and overcome the social menace of honour killings, aligning such legislation with constitutional ideals. 

[1] Indian kanoon

[2] Indian kanoon