Published on: 01st January 2026
Authored by: Rudrali Deshpande
New Law College, BVDU
INTRODUCTION
Honour killings are acts of homicide committed by one or more relatives or community members to punish the individual for alleged actions that have allegedly brought dishonour to the family or community[1]. Honour killings are often against women who marry or engage in relationships, either before marriage or outside accepted social parameters. The central legal issue being considered is whether “honour” can be construed as a legal defence in the Indian penal system[2].
In India, honour has not been recognized as a basis for the reduction of criminal liability by the law. The Supreme Court has termed honour killings a betrayal of the Constitution, the rule of law, and individual rights. In Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh[3], the Court held that it is a matter of individual choice for adults to marry the person of their choice and that efforts to interfere with those rights are unlawful[4].
In India, the law has not acknowledged honour as a ground for reduction of criminal liability. The Supreme Court has referred to honour killings as a violation of the Constitution, the rule of law and individual rights. In Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court stated that it is an individual prerogative for adults to marry someone of their choosing and that interference with that prerogative is against the law[5].
SOCIO-LEGAL CONTEXT
Honour killings are often associated with social beliefs that place the burdens of family or community reputation on women. These beliefs are often further reinforced by caste and patriarchal beliefs that restrict women’s freedom to function, especially when choosing a spouse. If an individual does not conform to the social beliefs that shape their community and family norms, families may view this as a threat to the social order.
Caste continues to play a vital role. In some regions of northern India, khap panchayats, informal village councils, have taken decisions against same-gotra or inter-caste marriages. These non-legal councils have even, in some instances, justified violence to uphold customary standards. The Supreme Court rules in Shakti Vahini v Union of India[6] that such practices are unlawful, and the freedom of choice of consenting adults of age needs to be protected[7].
Although honour killings are usually centred around rural locations, there have been reports of incidents within urban areas. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) documents the formal honour killing, recording its correspondence of 145 honour killings in 2023, but due to the stigma, occurrences will heighten as honour killings, where the distinguishable indicator of underreporting of incidents continues. Many other occurrences can accurately be considered honour killings for which we identify criminal misclassification made by police and previous recording[8].
Honour killings signify the ongoing survival of a collective mentality that esteems the authority of the community over the liberty of the person. Perpetrators cast themselves as being morally legitimate, notwithstanding the act of killing someone, when they invoke the authority of maintaining cultural purity by punishing someone who trespasses on social expectations. Article 13 of the Indian Constitution invalidates customs that violate fundamental rights and social customs that infringe on equality and liberty cannot be sustained under the Constitution[9].
Honour killings are a severe manifestation of gender-based violence, infringing the right to life, liberty, and equality from human rights point of view. Honour killings also violate India’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)[10] and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[11], both of which require State parties to protect individuals from discrimination and from violence.
- HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS
Honour killings constitute a direct contravention of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The right to equality, the right to choose one’s partner and the right to live with dignity cannot be curtailed by the family, caste, or community. Equality before law is guaranteed by Article 14, Article 15 prohibits discrimination by sex, caste or religion, Article 19 guarantees personal liberty and personal expression, and Article 21 protects personal liberty and life. When one is punished for choosing one’s partner, those basic rights are violated. The Supreme Court has reiterated that these constitutional guarantees are non-negotiable[12].
In Shakti Vahini v Union of India, the Court reasserted that every person has the right to a choice of a partner in life, which is an aspect of the right to life and liberty under Article 21. It stated that the interference by the community in the relationship of adults was a disregard for constitutional morality. The opinion stated that “constitutional morality” meant adherence to the values of equality, dignity, and individual autonomy, not adherence to customs which are traditional or religious[13].
Constitutional morality is a significance concept because it prioritises the Constitution over community standards. Courts have often invoked constitutional morality in the context of balancing community standards with individual liberty. For example, in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, the Supreme Court justified striking down Section 377 of the IPC on the basis of constitutional morality, noting that “the State has to respect a private sphere of constitutive choices relating to identity and intimacies” and that “relationships between consenting adults, even though outside the realm of hetero-normativity, must be respected.”[14] This rationalisation enhances protection for people against violence and social exclusion, in light of their choice of intimate relationships.
These protections are also grounded in international human rights law. India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Both treaties require states to protect all citizens from gender-based violence and to treat all citizens equally before the law. When a family or community commits an honour crime and the state does not intervene, it may be at odds with India’s international obligations.
States have been condemned by the CEDAW Committee for condoning “violence that is honour-based.”[15] It advocates stronger laws, better police training, and access to justice for victims. During its periodic review of India, the Committee requested the government to address honour crimes more explicitly and uphold women’s autonomy in marriage.
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has similarly addressed honour killing cases to establish guidelines for police investigation into the crime and for the protection of the victims. The NHRC has noted that honour killing constitutes a “violation of human dignity and equality,” and has requested that states ensure local bodies, such as khap panchayats, are not allowed to infringe upon individual rights[16].
To summarise, honour killings contradict both constitutional rights and international human rights standards, and they infringe upon equality, freedom, and dignity, all of which are recognised as constitutional charter values. To promote constitutional morality means to reject any and all societal practices that justify the use of violence in the name of honour. Accordingly, the law must protect personal liberty, and persons who violate the protective mechanisms of law must be held accountable for doing so[17].
JUDICIAL RESPONSES
The courts of India have constantly held that “honour” cannot be a defence to violence and murder. Honour killings are being tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which prescribes punishment of death or life imprisonment[18]. Courts have refused to be lenient in such situations and have made it clear that neither family pressure nor social disapproval is acceptable as a measure of the right to take life. This philosophy is also reflective of a commitment in India’s Constitution to equality and individual freedom.
Judicial attitudes changed with Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, when the Supreme Court allowed an adult woman to marry whoever she wanted. The court denounced “‘honour-based’ violence” as unlawful and instructed police authorities to protect inter-caste and inter-religious couples. This case also stressed that “family honour” or caste honour is no excuse to infringe on constitutional liberties, particularly the liberty to marry someone of the person’s own choice[19].
In the case of Bhagwan Dass v State (NCT of Delhi), the accused murdered his daughter because she left her husband and began to live with another man. The Supreme Court described honour killings as “barbaric and feudal” stating that honour killings are to “the world of medievalism.” The Court opined that honour killings constitute one of the “rarest of rare” cases deserving the highest punishment, even death. The message in the judgment is that cultural or familial honour can never mitigate criminal liability[20].
Also significant is Arumugam Servai v State of Tamil Nadu, where the Supreme Court condemned khap panchayats – customary caste councils that are often the perpetrators of violence against inter-caste marriage. The Court stated that khap panchayats have no legal authority and their orders or punishments are illegal in the eyes of the law. The Court ordered states to take stern action against members of khap panchayats who incite or carry out violence or encourage violence in the name of custom[21].
Judicial interpretation has also changed to focus on “individual dignity.” Courts view dignity as central to the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 meaning the state must protect individuals from physical harm, as well as the freedom to make individual life choices without the fear of violence. This framework is consistent with human rights standards in the context of international law.
To sum up, the Indian judiciary established that honour can never excuse or lessen criminal culpability. The courts also have made the connections between the prevention of honour killing and the constitutional principles of liberty, equality and dignity in landmark decisions. In those decisions, the courts also encouraged the executive branch to be proactive and ensure that the right to associate and marry are protected from pressure from family or society.
CONCLUSION
Honour killing continues to show alarms of how deeply social customs or traditions can be transformed into mechanisms of oppression. Honour killings are not examples of spontaneous interactions but rather systematic acts of control men exert over women and youth that challenge patriarchal or caste-based traditions. By disguising these criminal, violent acts as a matter of “honour,” that individual seeks to assign blame for the killing as a civil responsibility or duty. In India, the law and constitutional principles are designed to signal clearly that no tradition should be allowed to trump any individual’s right to life, liberty, and equality.
The judiciary has played an important role in rejecting any legal justification for honour crimes. The Supreme Court, through landmark decisions such as Lata Singh, Bhagwan Dass, Arumugam Servai, and Shakti Vahini, condemned the idea that honour can ever be a mitigating factor in sentencing the accused, framing these sorts of crimes as aggravated offences because of their attack on the liberty and dignity of the individual that is fundamental to the Constitution. The courts have also signalled the duty of the police and the administration to protect couples who are threatened with honour violence by their family or community.
This perspective is supported by the constitutional and human rights framework. Specifically, articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 provide for equality of individuals, non-discrimination and personal liberty, while international legal obligations, such as those given under the ICCPR and CEDAW, also mandate the state to protect individuals against violence based on gender and community characteristics. An honour killing represents a breakdown in law enforcement and the state’s human rights obligations.
In the end, the idea of “honour” is incompatible with constitutional morality. Where one insists upon conformity to social custom, the other is about freedom and equality. Therefore, courts, the law-making process and civil society must partner together to ensure that honour is never weaponised against the autonomy of a person. Safeguarding the right to choose a partner isn’t just about marriage, but about the dignity fundamental to both human rights and the Indian Constitution.
[1] Lynn Welchman and Sara Hossain (eds), ‘Honour’: Crimes, Paradigms and Violence Against Women (Zed Books 2005).
[2] Flavia Agnes, Law, Justice and Gender: Family Law and Constitutional Provisions in India (Oxford University Press 2011).
[3] Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) 5 SCC 475 (SC).
[4] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[5] Shalu Nigam, ‘Decoding Honour Crimes and the Law in India: A Socio-Legal Perspective’ (2021) 41 South Asia Research 23.
[6] Shakti Vahini v Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192 (SC).
[7] Law Commission of India, Report No 242 (2012).
[8] ThePrint, ‘Jharkhand Is the Honour Killing Capital of India Now. Haryana Is Second’ (3 October 2025) https://theprint.in/feature/jharkhand-is-the-honour-killing-capital-of-india-now-haryana-is-second/2756629/ accessed 3 November 2025.
[9] Constitution of India 1950, art 13.
[10] CEDAW (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13.
[11] ICCPR (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171.
[12] Constitution of India 1950, arts 14, 15, 19 and 21.
[13] Shakti Vahini v Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192 (SC).
[14] Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 (SC).
[15] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No 35 on Gender-Based Violence against Women (2017) UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/35.
[16] National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Advisory on Combating Honour-Based Crimes (2020).
[17] Shalu Nigam, ‘Honour Killings and the Indian Legal System: A Human Rights Perspective’ (2020) 45 Indian Law Review 112.
[18] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 302.
[19] Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) 5 SCC 475 (SC).
[20] Bhagwan Dass v State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396 (SC)
[21] Arumugam Servai v State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 6 SCC 405 (SC).
