Honour Crimes:
Writ petition – Seeking directions to State Governments and Central Government to take preventive steps to combat honour crimes; to submit State and National Plan of Action to curb such crimes; and seeking direction to the State Governments to constitute special cells and to launch prosecution in such cases – Held: Any kind of torture or torment or ill-treatment in the name of honour that tantamounts to atrophy of choice of an individual relating to love and marriage by any assembly, whatsoever nomenclature it assumes, is illegal and cannot be allowed – Consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary, once two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock – It is manifestation of their choice which is recognized u/Arts. 19 and 21 of the Constitution – Such constitutional right cannot succumb to the conception of class honour – Any infringement of such right is constitutional violation – Khap Panchayat or such assembly should not take the law into their hands and further cannot assume the character of the law implementing agency – Law has to be allowed to sustain by law enforcement agencies – Honour killings are condemned as a serious human rights violation – Therefore, it is recommended to the legislature to bring law appositely covering the field of honour killing – To meet the challenges of agonising affect of honour crime, there has to be preventive, remedial and punitive measures and hence the executive and administration of the States to add further measures to evolve a robust mechanism to the stated purpose – Constitution of India – Arts 19 and 21.
Words and Phrases:
‘Khap panchayat’ – Meaning of.
Disposing of the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD: 1. Class honour, howsoever perceived, cannot smother the choice of an individual which he or she is entitled to enjoy under compassionate Constitution of India. And this right of enjoyment of liberty deserves to be continually and zealously guarded so that it can thrive with strength and flourish with resplendence. The old order has to give way to the new. Feudal perception has to melt into oblivion paving the smooth path for liberty. [Para 1] [777-H; 778-A-B]
2. The 242nd Report of Law Commission of India shows the devastating effect of the crime and the destructive impact on the right of choice of an individual and the control of the collective over the said freedom. The Commission has emphasized on the intense pressure of the powerful community and how they punish the “sinning couples” according to their socio-cultural perception and community honour and the action taken by them that results in extinction of the rights of individuals which are guaranteed under the Constitution. It has eloquently canvassed about the autonomy of every person in matters concerning oneself and the expression of the right which is integral to the said individual. [Para 27] [790-F-G]
3. The draft Bill namely “the Prohibition of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliance Bill” as recommended by the Law Commission’s 242 nd Report, refers to “Khap Panchayat” to mean any person or group of persons who have gathered, assembled or congregated at any time with the view or intention of condemning any marriage, including a proposed marriage, not prohibited by law, on the basis that such marriage has dishonoured the caste or community tradition or brought disrepute to all or any of the persons forming part of the assembly or the family or the people of the locality concerned. [Para 28] [790-H; 791-A]
4. The protection of rights is pivotal. Though there has been constant social advancement, yet the problem of honour killing persists in the same way as history had seen in 1750 BC under the Code of Hammurabi. The people involved in such crimes become totally oblivious of the fact that they cannot tread an illegal path, break the law and offer justification with some kind of moral philosophy of their own. They forget that the law of the land requires that the same should be shown implicit obedience and profound obeisance. The human rights of a daughter, brother, sister or son are not mortgaged to the socalled or so-understood honour of the family or clan or the collective. The act of honour killing puts the rule of law in a catastrophic crisis. [Para 39] [795-D-E]
5. Honour killing is not the singular type of offence associated with the action taken and verdict pronounced by the Khap Panchayats. It is a grave one but not the lone one. It is a part of honour crime. It has to be clearly understood that honour crime is the genus and honour killing is the species, although a dangerous facet of it. However, any kind of torture or torment or ill-treatment in the name of honour that tantamounts to atrophy of choice of an individual relating to love and marriage by any assembly, whatsoever nomenclature it assumes, is illegal and cannot be allowed a moment of existence. [Para 40] [795-F-G]
6. 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. Their consent has to be piously given primacy. If there is offence committed by one because of some penal law, that has to be decided as per law which is called determination of criminality. It does not recognize any space for informal institutions for delivery of justice. It is so since a polity governed by ‘Rule of Law’ only accepts determination of rights and violation thereof by the formal institutions set up for dealing with such situations. It has to be constantly borne in mind that rule of law as a concept is meant to have order in a society. It respects human rights. Therefore, the Khap Panchayat or any Panchayat of any nomenclature cannot create a dent in exercise of the said right. [Para 41] [795-H; 796-A-C]
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 : [1994] 2 SCR 375 – relied on.
‘The Law in Crisis – Bridges of Understanding’ by C.G. Weeramantry – referred to.
7. Honour killing guillotines individual liberty, freedom of choice and one’s own perception of choice. It has to be sublimely borne in mind that when two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is a manifestation of their choice which is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Such a right has the sanction of the constitutional law and once that is recognized, the said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to the conception of class honour or group thinking which is conceived of on some notion that remotely does not have any legitimacy. [Para 42] [796-F-G]
8. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and the values it stands for. It is the obligation of the Constitutional Courts as the sentinel on qui vive to zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual as the dignified existence of an individual has an inseparable association with liberty. Without sustenance of liberty, subject to constitutionally valid provisions of law, the life of a person is comparable to the living dead having to endure cruelty and torture without protest and tolerate imposition of thoughts and ideas without a voice to dissent or record a disagreement. The fundamental feature of dignified existence is to assert for dignity that has the spark of divinity and the realization of choice within the parameters of law without any kind of subjugation. The purpose of laying stress on the concepts of individual dignity and choice within the framework of liberty is of paramount importance. Life and liberty sans dignity and choice is a phenomenon that allows hollowness to enter into the constitutional recognition of identity of a person. [Para 43] [796-H; 797-A-C]
9. The choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice. True it is, the same is bound by the principle of constitutional limitation but in the absence of such limitation, no one shall be permitted to interfere in the fructification of the said choice. If the right to express one’s own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness. When two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal and they have the right to do so. Any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation. [Para 44] [707-D-E]
10. The majority in the name of class or elevated honour of clan cannot call for their presence or force their appearance as if they are the monarchs of some indescribable era who have the power, authority and final say to impose any sentence and determine the execution of the same in the way they desire possibly harbouring the notion that they are a law unto themselves. The Constitution and the laws of this country do not countenance such an act and, in fact, the whole activity is illegal and punishable as offence under the criminal law. [Para 44] [797-F-G]
11. The ‘Khap Panchayats’ or such assembly should not take the law into their hands and further cannot assume the character of the law implementing agency, for that authority has not been conferred upon them under any law. Law has to be allowed to sustain by the law enforcement agencies. Their activities are to be stopped in entirety. There is no other alternative. What is illegal cannot commend recognition or acceptance. [Para 47] [798-F; 799-A]
12. An assembly or Panchayat committed to engage in any constructive work that does not offend the fundamental rights of an individual will not stand on the same footing of Khap Phanchayat. [Para 49] [799-G]
13. As many as 288 cases of honour killing were reported between 2014 and 2016. According to the data of National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 28 honour killing cases were reported in the year 2014, 192 in the year 2015 and 68 in the year 2016. [Para 49] [800-A]
14. Honour killings are condemned as a serious human rights violation and are addressed by certain international instruments. The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence addresses this issue. [Para 50] [800-B]
15. Once the fundamental right is inherent in a person, the intolerant groups who subscribe to the view of superiority class complex or higher clan cannot scuttle the right of a person by leaning on any kind of philosophy, moral or social, or self-proclaimed elevation. Therefore, for the sustenance of the legitimate rights of young couples or anyone associated with them and keeping in view the role of this Court as the guardian and protector of the constitutional rights of the citizens and further to usher in an atmosphere where the fear to get into wedlock because of the threat of the collective is dispelled, it is necessary to issue directives. [Para 51] [800-F-G]
Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC
244 : [1984] 2 SCR 795 ; Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (1997) 6 SCC 241 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 404 ; Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others (2006) 8 SCC 1 : [ 2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 473 – relied on.
16. Protection of human rights is the élan vital of our Constitution that epitomizes humanness and the said conceptual epitome of humanity completely ostracizes any idea or prohibition or edict that creates a hollowness in the inalienable rights of the citizens who enjoy their rights on the foundation of freedom and on the fulcrum of justice that is fair, equitable and proportionate. There cannot be any assault on human dignity as it has the potentiality to choke the majesty of law. Therefore, it is recommended to the legislature to bring law appositely covering the field of honour killing. [Para 52] [801-B-C]
Samrendra Beura v. Union of India and others (2013) 14 SCC 672 : [2013] 3 SCR 781 – relied on.
17. To meet the challenges of the agonising effect of honour crime, there has to be preventive, remedial and punitive measures and, accordingly, the Court states the broad contours and the modalities with liberty to the executive and the police administration of the concerned States to add further measures to evolve a robust mechanism for the stated purposes. [Para 53] [801-G]
Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another (2006) 5 SCC
475 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 350 ; Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 6 SCC 405 : [2011]
5 SCR 488 ; Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396 : [2011] 6 SCR 330 ; Re: India Woman says Gang-raped on Orders of Village Court published in Business & Financial News dated 23-1-2014 (2014) 4 SCC 786 : [2014] 4 SCR 264 ; Vikas Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2016)
9 SCC 541 : [2016] 8 SCR 872 ; Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar and others (2017) 4 SCC 397 ; State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and others AIR 2010 SC 3071 : [2010] 9 SCR 563 ; Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India and others (2013) 4 SCC 1 : [2013] 5 SCR 111 ; Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India and Others (2016) 10 SCC 265 : [2016] 8 SCR 192 ; S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and others (1989) 2 SCC 574 : [1989] 2 SCR 204 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.