SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

CITATION – (2018) 7 SCC 192

COURT – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

BENCH – DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.

DATE – MARCH 27, 2018

RELEVANT STATUTES – Article 19, Article 21, and Article 32 of the Constitution of India and Section 300 and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

BRIEF FACTS

This case revolves around the concept of “honorary killing.” This means that the murder of a person (usually a woman) by family members or community members who believe the victim has brought shame or dishonour to the family. The petitioner, Shakti Vahini, is the organisation that filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. This organisation is authorised by the National Commission for Women to conduct research on honour killings in Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh, as per a resolution passed on 22.12.2009. It was observed that the fear of not marrying each other has increased in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Punjab due to the increasing instances of honour killings.

According to the report of the National Crime Records Bureau for the years 2014, 2015, and 2016, reported cases of honour killing were 288, out of which 28 cases were in 2014, 251 were in 2015, and 77 cases were reported in 2017. The petitioner under the Indian Constitution demands directions from the Respondent (the state and central government) to take decisions and preventive steps to reduce the cases of honour killings and to submit a state and national plan for the strongholds of these crimes. The demand is to constitute a special cell for the well-being of the couple. Also, requests have been made for issuing a writ of mandamus to the state government to start prosecutions in each case of such honour killing and take measures.

It is outlined in the petition that the actions which are found to be linked with honour-based crimes are-

• loss of virginity outside marriage
• pre-marital pregnancy
• infidelity
• Having unapproved relationships
• Refusing an arranged marriage
• Asking for a divorce
• Demanding custody of children after divorce
• Leaving the family or marital home without permission
• Causing scandal or gossip in the community
• Falling victim to rape.

ISSUES INVOLVED

• Whether the right to select one’s partner a fundamental right under the Constitution of India?
• Whether institutes like Khap Panchayat have any legal validity?
• Whether the current legal system have the efficiency to curb these conservative practices?

ARGUMENTS

LEGAL VALIDITY OF KHAP PANCHAYAT

Khap is generally known as a community organisation that represents a clan or a collection of clans. Typically, these clans are male-dominated, which follows the patriarchal rule of the society; they are generally found in northern India, particularly western Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, which is controlled by the Jat people. A khap panchayat is a gathering of older people of the village who are in power with the money or an elder in their religious practice, and a sarv khap is the gathering of several khap panchayats. These khap panchayats generally make pronouncements on social concerns, which are not according to their social authority, like alcohol addiction, abortion, dowry, and education, particularly among girls. There is no legal identity that declares the legality of the khap panchayat, or any association with the publicly elected government bodies. A khap panchayat has no official government recognition or jurisdiction, yet it can wield considerable social power within the community it serves.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

The petitioner cited that the occurrence of honour killings is common in several states like Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Jharkhand in comparison to the southern states. According to the report, the cases of honour killings have increased to 300 in the last few years.

The inhuman treatment by the core groups (the self-proclaimed lawmakers) and the pressure of society have created a fear in the minds of the victims. These types of groups impose extreme punishment to create fear in people’s minds. Many of the victims commit suicide or suffer at the hands of such groups. These core groups are self-proclaimed/quasi-judicial/non-legal parallel law enforcement agencies, which are mostly male-dominated. These male members are known to be elders of the religion and well-versed in the ancient scriptures; they have connections with the other groups, the caste people, and other religions, and often meet to solve or deal with problems relating to the groups. They call themselves a panchayat, having the power to make decisions and punish the culprit according to the crime by social boycott or directing the people to kill by mob.

Many social things are considered crimes in the eyes of these groups, but choosing a life partner outside the community or the religion is considered the ugliest and dishonourable to the community norms. And unlike the offence, its punishment is also cruel, which leads to the death of a person.

In the petition, it is contended that these agencies consist of senior males from different castes and creeds who get together to address the issues that need to be eliminated by taking preventive measures. The central and state government needs to take crucial steps to control and reduce these honour killings. The national action plan and state action plan need to be submitted. So, these will work as a shield against these crimes.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

• The union of India, the ministry of home affairs and the ministry of women and child development, which are respondents no 1, 2 and 3, filed a counter affidavit and contended that honour killings are considered as murder under section 300 of Indian penal code, 1860 and are punishable under section 302. As public safety and the police are considered a state concern under the Indian constitution, so the honour killing falls under the purview of the states. A proposal is made either to amend the Indian penal code or pass a new piece of legislation to address the problem of honour killings and similar associated issues, which have also been put forth by the central government.
• On 9th September 2013, an affidavit was filed by the Union of India consisting of a proposal of the 242^nd report of the Law Commission of India bill “The Prohibition of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliance Bill” to reduce the problem of “honour killing”. The union of India also addresses that the discussion of the bill with the state government and union territories is necessary to make policy decisions, and this matter falls under the concurrent list of the Indian Constitution.
• On 16^th January 2014, 15 states/union territory gave their responses and waited for the remaining states. And afterwards, all the other states gave their responses too, and the discussion of the bill began according to the procedure.
• An affidavit is filed by the state of Punjab stating that they are not the silent spectator on honor killing and are against it, so a MEMO NO. 5/151/105H4/2732-80 has been issued by them in the Department of Home Affairs and Justice, which consists of the revised guidelines/policies to remove any doubt and to provide any certainty and threat amongst the public at large. These policies focused on the newly married couple, and many provisions direct their protection for at least 6 weeks after marriage, and similar to this provision, there are many other provisions for the safeguard of the couple. The state is further committed to taking pre-emptive, protective, and corrective measures to reduce the cases of honor killing. When any case regarding the same occurs, then appropriate action will be taken.
• The state of Haryana filed an affidavit denying the fact and the allegation made against it. They said that there was not a single case of honor killing in the last few months, they also stated that adequate protection is been provided to the couple by the order of the high court and district court, if there is any case occurs then direct FIR is been registered against the accused and proceedings are done according to law. The state also informed that an action plan has already been prepared, and the crime against women cell is functioning at the district level.
• In Delhi, the police don’t keep separate records for cases specifically labelled as honour killings, which can make it harder to track the true extent of the problem. But the issue is very real for many women who face threats or violence simply for making personal choices, like who they want to marry or how they want to live their lives. To support these women, the Department of Women and Child Development has stepped in with various forms of help. They’ve created spaces where women at risk can find safety, get counselling, and receive legal support. These services are meant to offer not just protection, but also a chance to rebuild their lives with dignity and hope. It’s a small but important step toward addressing the deeper cultural issues behind honour-based violence.
• In the state of Uttar Pradesh, 2 affidavits have been filed stating that there is no specific legislation to regulate honor killing, but preventive measures have been taken by the law enforcement agencies under the current law. These measures consist of the directions and guidelines for the agencies. It was also brought to attention that there was no case of honor killing between 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2012.
• The states of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh have recognized the urgent need to address the persistent and deeply rooted problem of honour killings. In response, these state governments have issued official circulars to their respective police departments, directing them to closely monitor the actions and decisions of local panchayats, traditional village councils, which, in some cases, have played a role in encouraging or justifying such violence. These circulars emphasize that the police must remain vigilant and ensure that any actions or pronouncements by panchayats do not violate the law or infringe upon individual rights, particularly those of young women and men who choose to marry or live according to their wishes. Furthermore, the police have been instructed to strictly follow and implement any guidelines or directives issued by the courts to prevent honour-based crimes.

ORDER OF THE  COURT

THE SUPREME COURT PASSED A VERDICT BY EXAMINING CERTAIN CASES

In LATA SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH(2006) – The Supreme Court made it clear that there is no legal barrier to inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. The court emphasized that every adult has the right to marry a person of their choice, and no one, whether family or community, can interfere with that right.

In Bhagwan Dass vs the state(NCT of Delhi), the court condemned the mindset that leads people to take the law into their own hands. It held that no one has the right to resort to violence or even threaten violence just because they disagree with someone’s personal decision.

Vikas Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2016)– the court went even further, stating that a woman’s individual choice is central to her dignity and self-respect. Trying to suppress that choice in the name of family, community, or caste ‘honour’, especially through violence, is not just unlawful.

Asha Ranjan vs State of Bihar(2017) – where the Court clearly stated that a woman’s right to choose her partner is a legitimate and protected constitutional right under Article 19, which guarantees personal freedom and expression.

PREVENTIVE MEASURES 

Identify Risk Zones:
States must find out which villages, towns, or districts have seen honour killings or khap panchayat interference in the last five years. These areas need special attention.

• Keep Police Alert
  The Home Department should direct local police to be extra cautious when couples from different castes or religions marry. These situations often trigger community backlash.
• Act on Early Warnings
  If any official hears of a planned khap panchayat meeting, they must immediately report it to senior police officers. Quick action can prevent violence.
• Stop Illegal Meetings Early
  A senior officer (like the Deputy Superintendent of Police) must speak directly to the khap leaders and make it clear that such meetings are not allowed by law, especially if they’re meant to shame or threaten couples.
• Be There If It Happens
  If the meeting still happens, police must attend and make sure no threats or harm come to the couple or their families. Officers must also warn that participants can be criminally charged.
• Record Everything
  The entire meeting must be video recorded so there’s evidence if anything unlawful is said or done.
• Prevent Harm
  If police believe there’s a real risk of violence, they must take immediate legal steps, like banning gatherings (Section 144 CrPC) or arresting those planning trouble (Section 151 CrPC).
• Work Together for Change
  The central and state governments must team up to train police, raise public awareness, and create systems that protect couples and promote social harmony.
• Protect Love and Choice-
  Above all, the message is clear: choosing who to love or marry is a basic right. No one should face violence or fear for making a personal decision.

Remedial Measures

When a couple chooses to marry against traditional norms, such as inter-caste or inter-religious unions, they often face serious threats. To ensure their safety, it is the responsibility of the Superintendent of Police (SP) and the District Magistrate to take immediate protective actions. This includes arranging safe houses where couples can stay without fear, and providing police protection if there’s any threat to their life or freedom.

If anyone whether family members, community leaders, or khap panchayats issues threats or illegal “orders” against the couple or their families, the SP is legally required to register a case (FIR) under Sections 141 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with unlawful assemblies and wrongful interference in personal liberty.

Punitive Measures

If any crime is committed against such couples, whether it’s harassment, violence, or the police must not only investigate the incident thoroughly, but also look into the involvement of khap panchayats or community bodies that may have incited or supported the crime.

The Superintendent of Police must ensure that justice is not limited to the couple’s case alone but also addresses the wider social forces behind the crime. After completing the investigation, the police must submit a detailed final report to the Magistrate as per Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

These measures are not just about enforcing the law; they are about protecting human dignity, ensuring freedom of choice, and sending a clear message: no one has the right to punish love.