Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Others
DIPAK MISRA, CJI. 1. Assertion of choice is an insegregable
facet of liberty and dignity. That is why the French philo sopher and
thinker, Simone Weil, has said:-
“Liberty, taking the word in its concrete sense consists in the ability
to choose.”
When the ability to choose is crushed in the name of class honour
and the person’s physical frame is treated with absolute indignity, a chilling
effect dominates over the brains and bones of the society at large. The
question that poignantly emanates for consideration is whether the elders
of the family or clan can ever be allowed to proclaim a verdict guided by
some notion of passion and eliminate the life of the young who have
exercised their choice to get married against the wishes of thei r elders
or contrary to the customary practice of the clan. The answer has to be
an emphatic “No”. It is because the sea of liberty and th e ingrained
sense of dignity do not countenance such treatment inasmuch as the
pattern of behaviour is based on some extra-constitutional percep tion.
Class honour, howsoever perceived, cannot smother the choice of a n
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
individual which he or she is entitled to enjoy under our compassionate
Constitution. And this right of enjoyment of liberty deserve s to be
continually and zealously guarded so that it can thrive with strength and
flourish with resplendence. It is also necessary to state here that the old
order has to give way to the new. Feudal perception has to melt into
oblivion paving the smooth path for liberty. That is how the statement of
Joseph J. Ellis becomes relevant. He has propounded:-
“We don’t live in a world in which there exists a single definition
of honour anymore, and it’s a fool that hangs on to the traditional
standards and hopes that the world will come around him.”
2. Presently, to the factual score. The instant Writ Petition has
been preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India se eking
directions to the respondents-State Governments and the Central
Government to take preventive steps to combat honour crimes, to submit
a National Plan of Action and State Plan of Action to curb crimes of the
said nature and further to direct the State Governments to constitute
special cells in each district which can be approached by the couples for
their safety and well being. That apart, prayers have been made to issue
a writ of mandamus to the State Governments to launch prosecutions in
each case of honour killing and take appropriate measures so that such
honour crimes and embedded evil in the mindset of certain members of
the society are dealt with iron hands.
3. The petitioner-organization was authorized for cond ucting
Research Study on “Honour Killings in Haryana and Western Uttar
Pradesh” by order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the National Commission
for Women. It is averred that there has been a spate of such honour
killings in Haryana, Punjab and Western Uttar Pradesh and the said
trend is on the increase and such killings have sent a chilli ng sense of
fear amongst young people who intend to get married but do not enter
into wedlock out of fear. The social pressure and the consequent inhuman
treatment by the core groups who arrogate to themselves the position of
law makers and impose punishments which are extremely crue l instill
immense fear that compels the victims to commit suici de or to suffer
irreparably at the hands of these groups. The egoism in such groups
getting support from similarly driven forces results in their becoming law
unto themselves. The violation of human rights and destru ction of
fundamental rights take place in the name of class honour or group right
or perverse individual perception of honour. Such individual or individuals
779
consider their behaviour as justified leaning on the theory of socially
sanctioned norms and the legitimacy of their functioning in the guise of
ethicality of the community which results in vigilantism. The assembly
or the collective defines honour from its own perception and describes
the same in such astute cleverness so that its actions, as it asserts, have
the normative justification.
4. It is contended that the existence of a woman in such an
atmosphere is entirely dependent on the male view of the reputation of
the family, the community and the milieu. Sometimes, it is centered on
inherited local ethos which is rationally not discernible. The action of a
woman or a man in choosing a life partner according to her or his own
choice beyond the community norms is regarded as dishonour which, in
the ultimate eventuate, innocently invites death at the cruel hands of the
community prescription. The reputation of a woman is weighed according
to the manner in which she conducts herself, and the family to which the
girl or the woman belongs is put to pressure as a consequence of which
the members of the family, on certain occasions, become silent spectators
to the treatment meted out or sometimes become active part icipants
forming a part of the group either due to determined beh aviour or
unwanted sense of redemption of family pride.
5. The concept of honour with which we are concerned has many
facets. Sometimes, a young man can become the victim of honour killing
or receive violent treatment at the hands of the family me mbers of the
girl when he has fallen in love or has entered into marriage. The collective
behaves like a patriarchal monarch which treats the wives , sisters and
daughters subordinate, even servile or self-sacrificing, persons moving
in physical frame having no individual autonomy, desire and identity. The
concept of status is accentuated by the male members of the community
and a sense of masculine dominance becomes the sole governing factor
of perceptive honour.
6. It is set forth in the petition that the actions which are found to
be linked with honour based crimes are- (i) loss of vir ginity outside
marriage; (ii) pre-marital pregnancy; (iii) infidelity; (iv) having unapproved
relationships; (v) refusing an arranged marriage; (vi) asking for divorce;
(vii) demanding custody of children after divorce; (viii) leaving the family
or marital home without permission; (ix) causing scandal or gossip in the
community, and (x) falling victim to rape. Expanding the aforesaid aspect,
it is stated that some of the facets relate to inappropriate relationship by
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
a woman some of which lead to refusal of arranged marriages. Certain
instances have been cited with regard to honour crimes and how the
said crimes reflect the gruesome phenomena of such incidents. Murder
in day light and brutal treatment in full public gaze of the members of the
society reflect that the victims are treated as inanimat e objects totally
oblivious of the law of the land and absolutely unconcerned with the
feelings of the victims who face such cruelty and eventually succumb to
them. The expression of intention by the couples to get married even if
they are adults is sans sense to the members who constitute the assembly,
for according to them, it is the projected honour that rules supreme and
the lives of others become subservient to their desires and decisions.
Instances that have been depicted in the Writ Petition pertain to beating
of people, shaving of heads and sometimes putting the victims on fire as
if they are “flies to the wanton boys”. Various news item s have been
referred to express anguish with regard to the abominable and horrifying
incidents that the human eyes cannot see and sensitive minds can never
countenance.
7. It is contended in the petition that the parallel law enforcement
agency consists of leading men of a group having the same line age or
caste which quite often meets to deal with the problems that a ffect the
group. They call themselves Panchayats which have the power to punish
for the crimes and direct for social boycott or killing by a mob. Sometimes
these Panchayats have the nomenclature of Khap Panchayats which
have cultivated and nurtured the feeling amongst themselves that their
duty is sanctified and their action of punishing the hapless v ictims is
inviolable. The meetings of the collective and the discussio ns in the
congregation reflect the level of passion at the highest. It is set forth that
the extra-constitutional bodies which engage in feudalistic activities have
no compunction to commit such crimes which are offences und er the
Indian Penal Code. It is because their violent acts have not been ta ken
cognizance of by the police and their functioning is not seriously
questioned by the administration. The constitutional provisions are shown
scant regard and human dignity is treated at the lowest melting point by
this collective. Article 21 which provides for protection of life and liberty
and guards basic human rights and equality of statu s has been
unceremoniously shown the exit by the actions of these Panchayats or
the groups who, without the slightest pangs of conscience, subscribe to
honour killing. In this backdrop, prayers have been made as has been
stated hereinbefore.
781
8. A counter affidavit has been filed on the behalf of the Union of
India, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Women and Chi ld
Development, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. It has been
contended that honour killings are treated as murder as defined under
Section 300 of the IPC and punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. As
the police and public order are State subjects under the Constitution, it is
primarily the responsibility of the States to deal with honour killings. It is
put forth that the Central Government is engaging various States and
Union Territories for considering a proposal to either amend the IPC or
enact a separate legislation to address the menace of honour killing and
related issues.
9. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 9 th September, 2013,
the Union of India has filed another affidavit stating, inter alia, that in
order to tackle the issue of ‘honour killings’, a Bill titled ‘The Prohibition
of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances Bill’ has been
recommended by the Law Commission of India vide the 242 nd Law
Commission Report. The Union of India has further contended that since
the matter of the 242 nd Law Commission Report falls under List III, i.e.,
Concurrent list of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India,
consultation with the Governments of the States and Union Territories is
a sine qua non for taking a policy decision in this regard.
10. In a further affidavit dated 16 th January, 2014, the Union of
India has contended that as on the said date, 15 States/UTs ha ve sent
their positive responses, while responses from other remaining Sta tes/
UTs were awaited. The Union of India filed an additional affidavit on
25 th September, 2014 wherein vide paragraph 4 it is averred that six
more States/UTs have sent positive responses in fav our of ‘The
Prohibition of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances
Bill’ and that reminders have been sent to the remaining Stat es/UTs
whose responses are awaited. Further, it has been submitte d that after
receiving comments from the remaining States/UTs, necessary action
shall be taken by the Union of India in the matter. It is the stand of the
Union of India that a draft Bill in consultation with all stakeholders will
be prepared for the avowed purpose as soon as the com ments are
received. It has also been set forth that several advisories ha ve been
issued to the State Governments from time to time regarding the steps
needed to prevent crimes against women including special ste ps to be
taken to curb the menace of honour killing.
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
11. An affidavit has been filed by the State of Punjab stat ing,
inter alia, that it is not taking adversarial position and it does not intend
to be a silent spectator to any form of honour killing and for t he said
reason, it has issued Memo No.5/151/10-5H4/2732-80 in the
Department of Home Affairs and Justice laying down and bringing into
force the revised guidelines/policies in order to remove any doubt and to
clear any uncertainty and/or threat prevalent amongst the public at large.
The policy, as put forth, envisages dealing with protectio n to newly
wedded couples who apprehend danger to life and liberty for at least six
weeks after marriage. It also asserted that the Stat e is determined to
take pre-emptive, protective and corrective measures and w henever
any individual case comes to notice or is highlighted, appropriate action
has been taken and shall also be taken by the Government. That apart,
the reply affidavit reflects that all the culprits of the crime have been
booked under the law and proceeded against.
12. The State of Haryana has filed an affidavit denyin g the
allegations made against the State and further stating t hat adequate
protection has been given to couples by virtue of the order of the High
Court and District Courts and sometimes by the police directly coming
to know of the situation. It is contended that FIRs have bee n lodged
against persons accused of the crime and the cases are progr essing as
per law. The stand of the State of Haryana is that an action plan has
already been prepared and the Crime Against Women C ells are
functioning at every district headquarter in the State and nec essary
publicity has already been given and the citizens are aw are of those
cells.
13. The State of Jharkhand has filed its response stating, inter
alia , the measures taken against persons involved in such crimes. Apart
from asseverating that honour killing is not common in the St ate of
Jharkhand, it is stated that it shall take appropriate steps to combat such
crimes.
14. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of NCT of Delhi.
The affidavit states that Delhi Police does not maintain separate record
for cases under the category of “Honour Killing”. However, it has been
mentioned that by the time the affidavit was filed, 11 cases were
registered. It is urged that such cases are handled by the District Police
and there is a special cell functioning within Delhi Police meant for serious
crimes relating to internal security and such cases can be referred to the
783
said cell and there is no necessity for constitution of a s pecial cell in
each police district. Emphasis has been laid that De lhi Police has
sensitized the field officers in this regard so that the issues can be handled
with necessary sensitivity and sensibility. The Departme nt of Women
and Child Development has also made arrangements for rehabilitation
of female victims facing threat of honour killing and efforts have been
made to sensitize the society against commission of such crimes. A
circular dealing with the subject ‘Action to be taken to prevent cases of
“Honour Killing”’ has been brought on record.
15. The State of Rajasthan, in its reply, had strongly deplored the
exercise of unwarranted activities under the garb of khap p anchayats.
The State of Rajasthan contends that it has issued circulars to the police
personnel to keep a check on the activities of the panchayats and further
expressed its willingness to abide by any guidelines that may be issued
by this Court to ameliorate and curb the evil of honour killing that subsists
in our society.
16. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed two counter affidavi ts
wherein it is stated that it is the primary duty of the States to protect the
Fundamental Rights enshrined and guaranteed under the Constitution of
India. It is further contended that although there is no specific legislation
to regulate and prevent “honour killing”, yet effective measures under
the present law are being taken by the State to control the same. The
said measures are in the nature of directions and guidelines to the law
enforcement agencies. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh ha s brought
on record that there have been no reported cases of “honour killing” or
“social ostracizing” in the State for the period from 01.0 1.2010 till
31.12.2012. Yet, time and again, directions are being given to the police
stations to keep a close watch on the activities and funct ioning of the
Khaps. The State of Uttar Pradesh has acceded to comply wi th any
directions which this Court may issue.
17. The State of Bihar has, in its affidavit, acknowledged that
honour killing is a heinous crime which violates the fundamental rights of
the citizens. Although the State of Bihar has taken the stance that cases
of honour killing in the State are almost nil, yet a list of five cases which
may assume the character of honour killing have been mentioned in the
affidavit. The State has further averred that several r eformative steps
have been taken for the upliftment and empowerment of women and
constant efforts are being made to sensitize people. It has been asserted
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
that the State of Bihar has initiated a scheme to provide National Saving
Certificate amounting to Rs. 25,000/- as incentive to any woman
performing inter-caste marriage in order to ensure their economic stability.
18. It has been contended by the State of Madhya Pradesh that
the State Government and the police are alive to the problem of honour
killings and they have created a “Crime Against Women Cel l” at the
State level headed by the Inspector General of Police t o ensure safety
of couples and active prosecution in each case of honour killin g. The
M.P. Government, vide order no. F/21-261/10 dated 27.01.2011, has
issued specific instructions to the District Magistrates/Superintendent of
Police for taking strict action in cases of honour killing.
19. It is the contention of the State of Himachal Pradesh tha t
there are no Panchayats of the nature of Khap Panchayats operating in
the State of Himachal Pradesh and that there have been no case s of
honour killing reported in the past 10 years. The State avers that several
measures are being taken to combat the social evils pr evailing in the
society.
20. An application for intervention, on behalf of several Kha p
Panchayats, filed by “Manushi Sanghatan” has been allowed. It has
been averred by Manushi Sanghatan that, on being requested by t he
media to voice their concern on the activities of Khap panch ayats, the
Sanghatan has conducted a survey into the functioning of the Khap
Panchayats, but they were unable to find any evidence to hold the Khap
Panchayats responsible for honour killings occurring in the country. In
this factual background, the Sanghatan contends that the proposed bill,
“The Prohibition of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial
Alliances Bill’, is a futile exercise in view of the ampl e existing penal
provisions and it is stated that the powers that the said bill aims to stipulate
may have the result of giving power to vested interests t o harass well
meant gatherings of local communities. The intervenor has also challenged
the findings of the report of the petitioner on various grounds.
21. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit wherein it has
been highlighted that this Court has taken cognizance of the brutal killings
that take place in the name of honour and it is urged that although some
States have formed an Action Plan in pursuance of the directions issued
by this Court, yet they have failed to effectively implement the same in
letter and spirit. In view of this fact, effective gui delines to the police
785
and law enforcement agencies to curb the menace of honour kil ling
need to be formulated and implemented.
22. From the stand taken by the concerned States, it is perceivable
that the authorities, while denying the incidences being visible , do not
dispute the sporadic happenstance of such occurrences and speak i n a
singular voice by decrying such acts. It is also clear that s ome such
Panchayats take the positive stance demonstrating their collective effort
as to how they cultivate in people the idea of inter-cast e marriage and
community acceptance. The duty of this Court, in view of the authorities
in the field that deal with specific circumstances, is to view the scenario
from the prism of pragmatic ground reality as has been projected and to
act within the constitutional parameters to protect the liberty and life of
citizens. Commitment to the constitutional values requires this Court to
be sensitive and act in such a matter and we shall do so wi thin the
permissible boundaries and framework because as the guard ian of the
rights of the citizens, this Court cannot choose the path of silence.
23. Before we engage ourselves in the process what we have
stated hereinabove and refer to the earlier decisions of this Court, we
think it apt to refer to the 242 nd Report submitted by the Law Commission
of India, namely, “Prevention of Interference with th e Freedom of
Matrimonial Alliances (in the name of Honour and Tradition): A Suggested
Legal Framework”. The relevant extracts of the Report read as follows:-
“1.2 At the outset, it may be stated that the words ‘honour killings’
and ‘honour crimes’ are being used loosely as conve nient
expressions to describe the incidents of violence and harassment
caused to the young couple intending to marry or having married
against the wishes of the community or family members. T hey
are used more as catch phrases and not as apt and a ccurate
expressions.
1.3 The so-called ‘honour killings’ or ‘honour crimes’ are not
peculiar to our country. It is an evil which haunts many other
societies also. The belief that the victim has brought dishonour
upon the family or the community is the root cause of such violent
crimes. Such violent crimes are directed especially against women.
Men also become targets of attack by members of family of a
woman with whom they are perceived to have an ‘inappropriate
relationship’. Changing cultural and economic status of women
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
and the women going against their male dominated culture has
been one of the causes of honour crimes. In some western cultures,
honour killings often arise from women seeking grea ter
independence and choosing their own way of life. In some cultures,
honour killings are considered less serious than other murders
because they arise from long standing cultural traditions and are
thus deemed appropriate or justifiable. An adulterous behaviour
of woman or pre-marital relationship or assertion of right to marry
according to their choice, are widely known causes for honour
killings in most of the countries. The report of th e Special
Rapporteur to U.N. 1 of the year 2002 concerning cultural practices
in the family that are violent towards women indicated that honour
killings had been reported in Jordon, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan,
United Arab Republic, Turkey, Yemen and other Persian Gul f
countries and that they had also taken place in western countries
such as France, Germany and U.K. mostly within migr ant
communities. The report “Working towards the elimination of
crimes against women committed in the name of honou r” 2
submitted to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights is quite revealing. Apart from the other countries n amed
above, according to the UN Commission on Human Rights, there
are honour killings in the nations of Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador,
India, Israel, Italy, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey and U ganda.
According to Mr. Widney Brown, Advocacy Director for Human
Rights Watch, the practice of honour killing “goes across cultures
and across religions”. There are reports that in some communities,
many are prepared to condone the killing of someone who have
dishonoured their family. The 2009 European Parliament ary
Assembly noted the rising incidents of honour crimes with concern.
In 2010, Britain saw a 47% rise of honour-related crimes. Data
from police agencies in the UK report 2283 cases in 2010 and
most of the attacks were conducted in cities that had high immigrant
populations. The national legal Courts in some countries viz., Haiti,
Jordon, Syria, Morocco and two Latin American countries do not
1 http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/
42e7191fae543562c1256 ba7004e963c/$FILE/G0210428.pd f
2http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/6a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/
985168f508ee799fc1256 c52002ae5a9/$FILE/N02467.90.p df
787
penalize men killing female relatives found committing adultery or
the husbands killing their wives in flagrante delicto. A survey by
Elen R. Sheelay 3 revealed that 20% of Jordanites interviewed
simply believe that Islam condones or even supports killing in the
name of family honour which is a myth.
1.4 As far as India is concerned, “honour killings” are mostly
reported from the States of Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and U.P.
Bhagalpur in Bihar is also one of the known places for “honour
killings”. Even some incidents are reported from Delhi and Tamil
Nadu. Marriages with members of other castes or the coup le
leaving the parental home to live together and marry provoke the
harmful acts against the couple and immediate family members.
1.5 The Commission tried to ascertain the number of such incidents,
the accused involved, the specific reasons, etc., so as to have an
idea of the general crime scenario in such cases. The Government
authorities of the States where incidents often occur have bee n
addressed to furnish the information. The Director (SR) in the
Ministry of Home Affairs, by her letter dated 26 May 2010, also
requested the State Governments concerned to furnis h the
necessary information to the Commission. However, there has
been no response despite reminder. But, from the newspape r
reports, and reports from various other sources, it is clear that the
honour crimes occur in those States as a result of people marrying
without their family’s acceptance and for marrying outside their
caste or religion. Marriages between the couple belonging to same
Gotra (family name) have also often led to violent reaction from
the family members or the community members. The Ca ste
councils or Panchayats popularly known as ‘Khap Panchayats’
try to adopt the chosen course of ‘moral vigilantism’ and enforce
their diktats by assuming to themselves the role of socia l or
community guardians .”
[underlining is ours]
24. Adverting to the dimensions of the problem and the need for a
separate law, the Report states:-
“2.3 The pernicious practice of Khap Panchayats and the lik e
taking law into their own hands and pronouncing on the invalidity
3Quoted in Anver Emon’s Article on Honour Killings
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
and impropriety of Sagotra and inter-caste marriages and handing
over punishment to the couple and pressurizing the family members
to execute their verdict by any means amounts to flagrant violation
of rule of law and invasion of personal liberty of the persons
affected.
2.4 Sagotra marriages are not prohibited by law, whatever m ay
be the view in olden times. The Hindu Marriage Disabil ities
Removal Act, 1946 was enacted with a view to dispel any doubts
in this regard. The Act expressly declared the validity of marriages
between the Hindus belonging to the same ‘gotra’ or ‘pravara’ or
different sub-divisions of same caste. The Hindu Marriage Ac t
does not prohibit sagotra or inter-caste marriages.”
And further:-
“2.5 The views of village elders or family elders cannot be forced
on the willing couple and no one has a right to use force or impose
far-reaching sanctions in the name of vindicating communit y
honour or family honour. There are reports that drastic actio n
including wrongful confinement, persistent harassment, mental
torture, infliction of or threats of severe bodily harm is resorted to
either by close relations or some third parties against the so-called
erring couple either on the exhortations of some or all the
Panchayatdars or with their connivance. Several instances of
murder of one or the other couple have been in the news. Social
boycotts and other illegal sanctions affecting the young couple ,
the families and even a section of local inhabitants are quite often
resorted to. All this is done in the name of tradition and honour.
The cumulative effect of all such acts have public order dimensions
also.”
25. The Law Commission had prepared a draft Bill and while
adverting to the underlying idea of the provisions of the draft Bill, it has
stated:-
“2.8 The idea underlying the provisions in the draft Bill is t hat
there must be a threshold bar against congregation or assembl y
for the purpose of objecting to and condemning the conduct of
young persons of marriageable age marrying according to the ir
choice, the ground of objection being that they belong to the same
gotra or to different castes or communities. The Panchayatdars
789
or caste elders have no right to interfere with the life and liberty
of such young couples whose marriages are permitted by law and
they cannot create a situation whereby such couples are plac ed
in a hostile environment in the village/locality concerned and
exposed to the risk of safety. Such highhanded acts have a
tendency to create social tensions and disharmony too. No frame
of mind or belief based on social hierarchy can claim immunit y
from social control and regulation, in so far as such beliefs manifest
themselves as agents of enforcement of right and wrong. The
very assembly for an unlawful purpose viz. disapproving the
marriage which is otherwise within the bounds of law and taking
consequential action should be treated as an offence as it has the
potential to endanger the lives and liberties of individuals concerned.
The object of such an assembly is grounded on disregard for the
life and liberty of others and such conduct shall be adequatel y
tackled by penal law. This is without prejudice to the prosecution
to be launched under the general penal law for the commission of
offences including abetment and conspiracy .
2.9 Given the social milieu and powerful background of caste
combines which bring to bear intense pressure on parents a nd
relatives to go to any extent to punish the ‘sinning’ couples so as
to restore the community honour, it has become necessary to deal
with this fundamental problem. Any attempt to effectively tackle
this socio-cultural phenomenon, rooted in superstit ion and
authoritarianism, must therefore address itself to various factors
and dimensions, viz, the nature and magnitude of the problem, the
adequacy of existing law, and the wisdom in using penal and other
measures of sanction to curb the power and conduct of cast e
combines. The law as it stands does not act either as a deterrence
or as a sobering influence on the caste combination s and
assemblies who regard themselves as being outside the pale of
law. The socio-cultural outlook of the members of caste councils
or Panchayats is such that they have minimal or scant regard for
individual liberty and autonomy.”
[Emphasis added]
26. Highlighting the aspect of autonomy of choices and liberty ,
the underlying object of the proposed Bill as has been stated by the Law
Commission reads as under :-
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
“4.1 The autonomy of every person in matters concerning oneself
– a free and willing creator of one’s own choices and decisions, is
now central to all thinking on community order and organization.
Needless to emphasize that such autonomy with its manifold
dimensions is a constitutionally protected value and is central to
an open society and civilized order. Duly secured individu al
autonomy, exercised on informed understanding of the values
integral to one’s well being is deeply connected to a f ree social
order. Coercion against individual autonomy will then become least
necessary.
4.2 In moments and periods of social transition, the tension s
between individual freedom and past social practices become focal
points of the community’s ability to contemplate and provide for
least hurting or painful solutions. The wisdom or wrongness of
certain community perspectives and practices, their intrinsic impact
on liberty, autonomy and self-worth, as well as the parents’ concern
over impulsive and unreflective choices – all these factors come
to the fore-front of consideration.
4.3 The problem, however, is the menacing phenomena of
repressive social practices in the name of honor triggering violent
reaction from the influential members of community who are blind
to individual autonomy. …”
27. Thus, the Report 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 Commis sion has
emphasized on the intense pressure of the powerful community and how
they punish the “sinning couples” according to their soci o-cultural
perception and community honour and the action taken by them t hat
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.
28. Be it noted, the draft Bill refers to “Khap Panchayat” to mean
any person or group of persons who have gathered, assembl ed 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
791
or brought disrepute to all or any of the persons forming p art of the
assembly or the family or the people of the locality concerned.
29. Presently, we shall advert to certain pronouncements of thi s
Court where the Court, while adjudicating the lis of the said nature, has
expressed its concern with regard to such social evil wh ich is the
manifestation of perverse thought, egotism at its worst and inhuman
brutality.
30. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another 4, a two-Judge
Bench, while dealing with a writ petition under Artic le 32 of the
Constitution which was filed for issuing a writ of certiorar i and/or
mandamus for quashing of a trial, allowed the writ petition preferred by
the petitioner whose life along with her husband’s life was in constant
danger as her brothers were threatening them. The Court observed that
there is no bar for inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or
any other law and, hence, no offence was committed by the petitioner,
her husband or husband’s relatives. The Court also expres sed dismay
that instead of taking action against the petitioner’s brothers for unlawful
and high handed acts, the police proceeded against the pet itioner’s
husband and her sisters-in-law. Being aware of the harassme nt faced
and violence against women who marry outside their caste, the Court
observed:-
“17. … This is a free and democratic country, and once a person
becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If
the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or
inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can
cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot
give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot
harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious
marriage. …”
31. After so stating, the two-Judge Bench directed the
administration/police authorities throughout the country to ensure that if
any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or in ter-religious
marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple i s neither
harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and that
anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence
either himself or at his instigation is taken to task by instituting criminal
4(2006) 5 SCC 475
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action
is taken against such persons as provided by law. Deliberating further,
the Court painfully stated:-
“18. We sometimes hear of “honour” killings of such persons who
undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free
will. There is nothing honourable in such killings, and in fact they
are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed
by brutal, feudal-minded persons who deserve harsh punishment.
Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism.”
32. In Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu 5, the Court
referred to the observations made in Lata Singh ’s case and opined:-
“12. We have in recent years heard of “Khap Panchayats” (known
as “Katta Panchayats” in Tamil Nadu) which often decree or
encourage honour killings or other atrocities in an institutionalised
way on boys and girls of different castes and religion, who wish
to get married or have been married, or interfere with the personal
lives of people. We are of the opinion that this is wholly illegal and
has to be ruthlessly stamped out. As already stated in Lata Singh
case , there is nothing honourable in honour killing or other atrocities
and, in fact, it is nothing but barbaric and shameful murder. Other
atrocities in respect of personal lives of people committed by brutal,
feudal-minded persons deserve harsh punishment. Only in this
way can we stamp out such acts of barbarism and feudal mentality.
Moreover, these acts take the law into their own hands, and amount
to kangaroo courts, which are wholly illegal.”
33. After so stating, the Court directed the administrativ e and
police officials to take strong measures to prevent such atrocious act s.
If such incidents happen, apart from instituting criminal pr oceedings
against those responsible for the atrocities, the State Gover nment was
directed to immediately suspend the District Magistrate/C ollector and
SSP/SPs of the district as well as other officials concerned and charge-
sheet them and proceed against them departmentally if they do not (1)
prevent the incident if it has not already occurred but they have knowledge
of it in advance, or (2) if it has occurred, they do not promptly apprehend
the culprits and others involved and institute criminal proceedings against
them. Be it noted, in the said case, the Court commented on the appellants
that they had behaved like uncivilized savages and deserved no mercy.
5(2011) 6 SCC 405
793
34. The aforesaid view of the Court was further emphasized in
Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) 6 wherein it has been stated
that many people feel that they are dishonoured by the behaviour of the
young man/woman who is related to them or belongs to their caste simply
because he/she is marrying against their wish or having an a ffair with
someone, and hence they take the law into their own hands and kill or
physically assault such person or commit some other atrocities which is
wholly illegal. Regard being had to the expression of unhappiness with
the behaviour of a daughter or other person, the Court observed that the
maximum a person can do is to cut off social relations with her/him, but
he cannot take the law into his own hands by committing violence or
giving threats of violence.
35. In Re: India Woman says Gang-raped on Orders of Village
Court published in Business & Financial News dated 23-1-2014 7,the
Court, after referring to Lata Singh (supra), Arumugam Servai (supra)
and adverting to the 242 nd Report of the Law Commission, opined:-
“16. Ultimately, the question which ought to consider and assess
by this Court is whether the State police machinery could have
possibly prevented the said occurrence. The response is certainly
a “yes”. The State is duty-bound to protect the fundamental rights
of its citizens; and an inherent aspect of Article 21 of the
Constitution would be the freedom of choice in marriage. Such
offences are resultant of the State’s incapacity or inability to protect
the fundamental rights of its citizens.”
And again:-
“18. As a long-term measure to curb such crimes, a larger societal
change is required via education and awareness. The Government
will have to formulate and implement policies in order to uplift the
socio-economic condition of women, sensitisation of the poli ce
and other parties concerned towards the need for gender equality
and it must be done with focus in areas where statistically there is
higher percentage of crimes against women.”
36. In Vikas Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 8, the
two-Judge Bench, while dwelling upon the quantum of sentence in the
6 (2011) 6 SCC 396
7 (2014) 4 SCC 786
8 (2016) 9 SCC 541
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
case where the young man chosen by the sister was murdere d by the
brother who had received education in good educational institutions ,
observed that the accused persons had not cultivated the ability to abandon
the deprecable feelings and attitude for centuries. Perhaps , they had
harboured the fancy that it is an idea of which time had a rrived from
time immemorial and ought to stay till eternity. Proceeding further, the
Court held:-
“75. One may feel “My honour is my life” but that does not mean
sustaining one’s honour at the cost of another. Fre edom,
independence, constitutional identity, individual choice and thought
of a woman, be a wife or sister or daughter or mother, cannot be
allowed to be curtailed definitely not by application of physical
force or threat or mental cruelty in the name of his self-assumed
honour. That apart, neither the family members nor the members
of the collective has any right to assault the boy chosen by the
girl. Her individual choice is her self-respect and creating dent in
it is destroying her honour. And to impose so-called brotherly or
fatherly honour or class honour by eliminating her choice is a
crime of extreme brutality, more so, when it is done under a guise.
It is a vice, condemnable and deplorable perception of “honour”,
comparable to medieval obsessive assertions.”
37. In Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar and others 9, the Court, in
a different context, noted:-
“61. …choice of woman in choosing her partner in life is a
legitimate constitutional right. It is founded on individual choice
that is recognised in the Constitution under Article 19, and such a
right is not expected to succumb to the concept of “class honour”
or “group thinking”. It is because the sense of class honour ha s
no legitimacy even if it is practised by the collective under some
kind of a notion.”
38. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Master and others 10 ,the Court,
while setting aside the judgment of acquittal of the High Court, convicted
the accused persons with rigorous imprisonment for life and f ine of
Rs. 25,000/-. It observed that killing of six persons and wiping o ut of
almost the whole family on the flimsy ground of saving of honour of the
family would fall within the ‘rarest of rare’ case evolved by this Court
9 (2017) 4 SCC 397
10 AIR 2010 SC 3071
795
and, therefore, the trial court was perfectly justified in imposing capital
punishment on the respondents. However, taking into consideration the
fact that the incident had taken place before twenty years, it did not pass
the death sentence but imposed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment
for life. The said decision reflects the gravity of the crime that occurs
due to “honour killing”.
39. The aforesaid authorities show the distress with which t he
Court has perceived the honour crimes and also reflects the uneasiness
and anxiety to curb such social symptoms. The observations were made
and the directions were issued in cases where a crime based on honour
was required to be dealt with. But, the present case, in contradistinction,
centres around honour killing and its brutality and the s ubstantive
measures to be taken to destroy the said menace. The violati on of the
constitutional rights is the fulcrum of the issue. 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 requir es
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 so-called 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.
40. It is necessary to mention here that 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 un derstood that
honour crime is the genus and honour killing is the species, although a
dangerous facet of it. However, it can be stated without any fear of
contradiction that 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.
41. What we have stated hereinabove, to explicate, is that the
consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock. Their c onsent
has to be piously given primacy. If there is offence co mmitted by one
because of some penal law, that has to be decided as per la w 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 a nd 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 co ncept is
meant to have order in a society. It respects human rights. Ther efore,
the Khap Panchayat or any Panchayat of any nomenclature cannot create
a dent in exercise of the said right.
42. In this regard, we may fruitfully reproduce a passage from
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 11 wherein C.G. Weeramantry in ‘The
Law in Crisis – Bridges of Understanding’ emphasizing the importance
of rule of law in achieving social interest has stated:-
“The protections the citizens enjoy under the Rule of Law are the
quintessence of twenty centuries of human struggle. It is no t
commonly realised how easily these may be lost. There is n o
known method of retaining them but eternal vigilance. There is no
known authority to which this duty can be delegated but th e
community itself. There is no known means of stimulating this
vigilance but education of the community towards an enlightened
interest in its legal system, its achievements and its problems.”
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.
43. 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 t he
11 (1994) 3 SCC 569
797
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 protes t and tolerate
imposition of thoughts and ideas without a voice to dissent or record a
disagreement. The fundamental feature of dignified exis tence 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 sub jugation.
The purpose of laying stress on the concepts of individual dignity and
choice within the framework of liberty is of paramount importance. We
may clearly and emphatically state that life and liberty sans dignity and
choice is a phenomenon that allows hollowness to en ter into the
constitutional recognition of identity of a person.
44. 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, none, we mean, no one shall be permitted to
interfere in the fructification of the said choice. If the r ight to express
one’s own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of
dignity in its sanctified completeness. When two adults ma rry out of
their volition, they choose their path; they consum mate their
relationship; they feel that it is their goal and they have the right to do so.
And it can unequivocally be stated that they have the right a nd any
infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation. The majority in
the name of class or elevated honour of clan cannot c all 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 t hey
desire possibly harbouring the notion that they are a law unto
themselves or they are the ancestors of Caesar or, for that matter, Louis
the XIV. The Constitution and the laws of this coun try do not
countenance such an act and, in fact, the whole activity is ill egal and
punishable as offence under the criminal law.
45. It has been argued on behalf of the “Khap Panchayats” that it
is a misnomer to call them by such a name. The nomen clature is
absolutely irrelevant. What is really significant is that th e assembly of
certain core groups meet, summon and forcefully ensure the p resence
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
of the couple and the family members and then adjudicate and impose
punishment. Their further submission is that these pa nchayats are
committed to the spreading of awareness of permissi bility of
inter-community and inter-caste marriages and they also tell the people
at large how “Sapinda” and “Sagotra” marriages have no sa nction of
law. The propositions have been structured with immense craft and
advanced with enormous zeal and enthusiasm but the fallacy behind the
said proponements is easily decipherable. The argument is founded on
the premise that there are certain statutory provisi ons and certain
judgments of this Court which prescribe the prohibitory degree s for
marriages and provide certain guidelines for maintaining the sex ratio
and not giving any allowance for female foeticide that is a resultant
effect of sex determination which is prohibited und er the
Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibi tion on
Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short ‘PCPNDT Act’) (See : Voluntary
Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India and others 12 and
Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India and oth-
ers 13 ).
46. The first argument deserves to be rejected without m uch
discussion. Suffice it to say, the same relates to the re cognition of
matrimonial status. If it is prohibited in law, law shall take note of it when
the courts are approached. Similarly, PCPNDT Act is a complete code.
That apart, the concern of this Court in spreading awareness to sustain
sex ratio is not to go for sex determination and resu ltantly female
foeticide. It has nothing to do with the institution of marriage.
47. 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 confer red upon
them under any law. Law has to be allowed to sustain by the law
enforcement agencies. For example, when a crime und er IPC is
committed, an assembly of people cannot impose the punishment. They
have no authority. They are entitled to lodge an FIR or inform the police.
They may also facilitate so that the accused is dealt with in accordance
with law. But, by putting forth a stand that they a re spreading
awareness, they really can neither affect others’ fundamental rights nor
cover up their own illegal acts. It is simply not permissible. In fact, it has
to be condemned as an act abhorrent to law and, therefore, it has to
12 (2013) 4 SCC 1
13 (2016) 10 SCC 265
799
stop. Their activities are to be stopped in entirety. Ther e is no other
alternative. What is illegal cannot commend recognition or acceptance.
48. Having noted the viciousness of honour crimes a nd
considering the catastrophic effect of such kind of crimes on the society,
it is desirable to issue directives to be followed by the law enforcement
agencies and also to the various administrative authorities. We are
disposed to think so as it is the obligation of the St ate to have an
atmosphere where the citizens are in a position to enjoy their
fundamental rights. In this context, a passage from S. Rangarajan v. P.
Jagjivan Ram and others 14 is worth reproducing:-
“51. We are amused yet troubled by the stand taken by the State
Government with regard to the film which has received the
National Award. We want to put the anguished question, what
good is the protection of freedom of expression if the State does
not take care to protect it? If the film, is unobjectionable and cannot
constitutionally be restricted under Article 19(2), freedom of
expression cannot be suppressed on account of threa t of
demonstration and processions or threats of violence. That would
tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to
blackmail and intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the
freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the
State. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the h ostile
audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and protect
the freedom of expression.”
We are absolutely conscious that the aforesaid passage has been
stated in respect of a different fundamental right but the said principle
applies with more vigour when the life and liberty of individ uals is
involved. We say so reminding the States of their co nstitutional
obligation to comfort and nurture the sustenance of fundamental rights
of the citizens and not to allow any hostile group to create any kind of
trench in them.
49. We may also hold here that an assembly or Panch ayat
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. Before we proceed to issue directions to me et the
challenges of honour crime which includes honour killing, it is necessary
14 (1989) 2 SCC 574
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
to note that as many as 288 cases of honour killing were reported
between 2014 and 2016. According to the data of Nationa l Crime
Records Bureau (NCRB), 28 honour killing cases were reported in 2014,
192 in 2015 and 68 in the year 2016.
50. We may note with profit that honour killings are condemned
as a serious human rights violation and are address ed by certain
international instruments. The Council of Europe Co nvention on
Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Dom estic
Violence addresses this issue. Article 42 reads thus:-
“Article 42 – Unacceptable justifications for crimes, including
crimes committed in the name of so-called “honour”
1. Parties shall take the necessary legislative or ot her measures
to ensure that, in criminal proceedings initiated following th e
commission of any of the acts of violence covered by the scop e
of this Convention, culture, custom, religion, tradition or so-called
“honour” shall not be regarded as justification for such acts. This
covers, in particular, claims that the victim has tra nsgressed
cultural, religious, social or traditional norms or c ustoms of
appropriate behaviour.
2. Parties shall take the necessary legislative or ot her measures
to ensure that incitement by any person of a child to commit any
of the acts referred to in paragraph 1 shall not dim inish the
criminal liability of that person for the acts committed.”
51. 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 Co urt as the
guardian and protector of the constitutional rights of the citizens and
further to usher in an atmosphere where the fear to get i nto wedlock
because of the threat of the collective is dispelled, it i s necessary to
issue directives and we do so on the foundation of the principle stated in
Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India 15 , Vishaka and others v.
State of Rajasthan and others 16 and Prakash Singh and others v.
Union of India and others 17 .
15 (1984) 2 SCC 244
16 (1997) 6 SCC 241
17 (2006) 8 SCC 1
801
52. It is worthy to note that certain legislations have come into
existence to do away with social menaces like “Sati” and “Dowry”. It is
because such legislations are in accord with our Constitution. Similarly,
protection of human rights is the élan vital of our Constit ution that
epitomizes humanness and the said conceptual epitome of huma nity
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. The refore, we
would recommend to the legislature to bring law appositely covering the
field of honour killing. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the au-
thority wherein this Court has made such recommenda tion. In
Samrendra Beura v. Union of India and others 18 , this Court held:-
“16. Though such amendments have been made by Parliament
under the 1950 Act and the 1957 Act, yet no such amendment has
been incorporated in the Air Force Act, 1950. The afor esaid
provisions, as we perceive, have been incorporated in bot h the
statutes to avoid hardship to persons convicted by the Co urt
Martial. Similar hardship is suffered by the persons w ho are
sentenced to imprisonment under various provisions of the Act.
Keeping in view the aforesaid amendment in the other two
enactments and regard being had to the purpose of the amendment
and the totality of the circumstances, we think it apt to recommend
the Union of India to seriously consider to bring an amendment in
the Act so that the hardships faced by the persons convic ted by
the Court Martial are avoided.”
53. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel being assisted
by Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, has filed certain suggestions f or issuing
guidelines. The Union of India has also given certain suggestions to be
taken into account till the legislation is made. To meet the challenges of
the agonising effect of honour crime, we think that there has to be
preventive, remedial and punitive measures and, accordingly, we state
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.
18 (2013) 14 SCC 672
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
I. Preventive Steps :-
(a) The State Governments should forthwith identify Distric ts,
Sub-Divisions and/or Villages where instances of honour k illing or
assembly of Khap Panchayats have been reported in the re cent past,
e.g., in the last five years.
(b) 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 Officer Incharge of the Police
Stations of the identified areas are extra cautious if an y instance of
inter-caste or inter- religious marriage within their jurisdiction comes to
their notice.
(c) 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.
(d) On receiving such information, the Deputy Superintendent of
Police (or such senior police officer as identified by the State
Governments with respect to the area/district) shal l immediately
interact with the members of the Khap Panchayat and imp ress upon
them that convening of such meeting/gathering is not permissible in law
and to eschew from going ahead with such a meeting. Additionally, he
should issue appropriate directions to the Officer I ncharge of the
jurisdictional Police Station to be vigilant and, if necessary, to deploy
adequate police force for prevention of assembly of the proposed
gathering.
(e) Despite taking such measures, if the meeting is conduct ed,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police shall personally remain present during
the meeting and impress upon the assembly that no decision can be
taken to cause any harm to the couple or the family member s of the
couple, failing which each one participating in the meeting besides the
organisers would be personally liable for criminal prosecution. He shall
also ensure that video recording of the discussion and participation of
the members of the assembly is done on the basis of w hich the law
enforcing machinery can resort to suitable action.
(f) If the Deputy Superintendent of Police, after interaction with
the members of the Khap Panchayat, has reason to believe that the
803
gathering cannot be prevented and/or is likely to cause harm to the couple
or members of their family, he shall forthwith submit a proposal to the
District Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate of th e District/
Competent Authority of the concerned area for issuing orders to take
preventive steps under the Cr.P.C., including by invoking prohib itory
orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and also by causing arres t of the
participants in the assembly under Section 151 Cr.P.C.
(g) The Home Department of the Government of India must take
initiative and work in coordination with the State Governm ents for
sensitising the law enforcement agencies and by involving all the stake
holders to identify the measures for prevention of such violence and to
implement the constitutional goal of social justice and the rule of law.
(h) There should be an institutional machinery with the necessary
coordination of all the stakeholders. The different State Go vernments
and the Centre ought to work on sensitization of the law enforce ment
agencies to mandate social initiatives and awareness to curb such vio-
lence.
II. Remedial Measures :-
(a) Despite the preventive measures taken by the State Police, if
it comes to the notice of the local police that the Khap P anchayat has
taken place and it has passed any diktat to take action against a couple/
family of an inter-caste or inter-religious marriag e (or any other
marriage which does not meet their acceptance), the jurisdictional
police official shall cause to immediately lodge an F.I.R. unde r the
appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 141,
143, 503 read with 506 of IPC.
(b) Upon registration of F.I.R., intimation shall be simultaneously
given to the Superintendent of Police/ Deputy Superintendent of Police
who, in turn, shall ensure that effective investigation of the crime is done
and taken to its logical end with promptitude.
(c) Additionally, immediate steps should be taken to provide
security to the couple/family and, if necessary, to remove them to a safe
house within the same district or elsewhere keeping in mind their safety
and threat perception. The State Government may con sider of
establishing a safe house at each District Headquarter for that purpose.
Such safe houses can cater to accommodate (i) young bachelor-
bachelorette couples whose relationship is being oppo sed by their
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
families /local community/Khaps and (ii) young married couples (of an
inter-caste or inter-religious or any other marriage being opposed by
their families/local community/Khaps). Such safe houses may be placed
under the supervision of the jurisdictional District Magistrate and
Superintendent of Police.
(d) The District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police must deal
with the complaint regarding threat administered to such couple/family
with utmost sensitivity. It should be first ascertain ed whether the
bachelor-bachelorette are capable adults. Thereafter, if necessary, they
may be provided logistical support for solemnising their marriage and/or
for being duly registered under police protection, if they so desire. After
the marriage, if the couple so desire, they can be provided accommodation
on payment of nominal charges in the safe house initially for a period of
one month to be extended on monthly basis but not exceeding one year
in aggregate, depending on their threat assessment on case to case
basis.
(e) The initial inquiry regarding the complaint received from the
couple (bachelor-bachelorette or a young married coupl e) or upon
receiving information from an independent source that the relationship/
marriage of such couple is opposed by their family memb ers/local
community/Khaps shall be entrusted by the District Magistrate/
Superintendent of Police to an officer of the rank of Additional
Superintendent of Police. He shall conduct a preliminary i nquiry and
ascertain the authenticity, nature and gravity of threat perce ption. On
being satisfied as to the authenticity of such threats, he shall immediately
submit a report to the Superintendent of Police in not later than one
week.
(f) The District Superintendent of Police, upon receipt of such
report, shall direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police incharge of the
concerned sub-division to cause to register an F.I.R. against the persons
threatening the couple(s) and, if necessary, invoke Section 151 of Cr.P.C.
Additionally, the Deputy Superintendent of Police shal l personally
supervise the progress of investigation and ensure that th e same is
completed and taken to its logical end with promptitude. In the course of
investigation, the concerned persons shall be booked without any
exception including the members who have participated in the assembly.
If the involvement of the members of Khap Panchayat comes to the
fore, they shall also be charged for the offence of conspiracy or
abetment, as the case may be.
805
III. Punitive Measures:-
(a) Any failure by either the police or district officer/officials to
comply with the aforesaid directions shall be considere d as an act of
deliberate negligence and/or misconduct for which departmental action
must be taken under the service rules. The departmental action shall be
initiated and taken to its logical end, preferably not exceeding six months,
by the authority of the first instance.
(b) In terms of the ruling of this Court in Arumugam Servai
(supra) , the States are directed to take disciplinary action again st the
concerned officials if it is found that (i) such official(s) did not prevent
the incident, despite having prior knowledge of it, or (ii ) where the
incident had already occurred, such official(s) did not promptly
apprehend and institute criminal proceedings against the culprits.
(c) The State Governments shall create Special Cells in every
District comprising of the Superintendent of Police, the District Social
Welfare Officer and District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer to receive
petitions/complaints of harassment of and threat to couples of inter-caste
marriage.
(d) These Special Cells shall create a 24 hour helpline to receive
and register such complaints and to provide necessary assistance/
advice and protection to the couple.
(e) The criminal cases pertaining to honour killing or violence to
the couple(s) shall be tried before the designated Court/Fast Track Court
earmarked for that purpose. The trial must proceed on day to day basis
to be concluded preferably within six months from the date of ta king
cognizance of the offence. We may hasten to add that this dir ection
shall apply even to pending cases. The concerned District Judge shall
assign those cases, as far as possible, to one jurisdictional court so as to
ensure expeditious disposal thereof.
54. The measures we have directed to be taken have to be
carried out within six weeks hence by the respondent-States. Reports
of compliance be filed within the said period before the Registry of this
Court.
55. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Kalpana K. Tripathy Petition disposed of.
SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]