Author By : Shameerpet Manasa
Institution: Mahindra University
Honour Killings: A Violation of Human Rights and Justice
Today, everyone is familiar with the concept of ‘discrimination.’ Discrimination just means treating a particular group or person as inferior or less significant than another group or person. One can discriminate against another for any reason, such as caste, religion, gender, race, or age. Such discrimination among people may lead to the commission of some harmful acts. One of those is called ‘honor killing’. Today, we are going to present a case relating to the same.
Killing or murder that is carried out by one upon another, be it even a stranger or a family member, is termed as an honor killing effort to maintain what they consider to be the dignity and honor of themselves or their family. Religion, caste, race, and all other types of social hierarchy play a role in such killings. It may also denote the killing of a man or a woman by their kinsfolk because they believe that specific person has brought shame or disgrace to the family name, reputation, and prestige.
Historical Evolution of Khap Panchayat Legitimacy and Its Validity
A Khap is the group organization of a clan or a group of clans. Khap organizations generally can be found in northern India, particularly among the Jat people, Western Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana; however, the term has traditionally been used to refer to other groups.
The assembly of older persons belonging to a Khap is called a ‘Khap Panchayat’, and that of several ‘Khap Panchayats’ is called an assembly or ‘Sarv Khap’.
The ‘Khap Panchayats’ are always speaking about social evils like abortion, alcoholism, dowry, and education, especially for girls. Khaps have nothing to do with the elected governmental bodies and are concerned only with the business of the Khap that they represent. Neither is it related to the local elected bodies known as panchayats. An officially unrecognized and established khap panchayat is that part of the rural village with immense social power within the community it caters to.
Primarily, the Khap Panchayat group comprises the senior male members of the village who become its members. During those times, girls were not interested in joining the Khap Panchayat.
One of the Most Important Cases Related to Honor Killing: “Shakti Vahini v. Union of India”
This judgment was key in tackling “honor-based violence”. It provided clear guidelines to help prevent honor killings and protect individual freedom, especially in marriage matters.
Factual Background of the Case
The petitioner in “Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India (2018)” was the “Shakti Vahini Organization”, which invoked Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies) of the Indian Constitution to petition the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The petitioner’s group was granted permission by the National Commission for Women to carry out a study on honor killings in Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh by a decision dated December 22, 2009. In Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Punjab, it has been noted that the rise in honor-killing instances has led to an increase in the number of situations when people choose not to marry because they are afraid.
There were 288 honor killings in 2014, 2015, and 2016, according to the National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) annual report. In 2014, there were 28 of these incidents; in 2015, there were 251; and in 2016, there were 77 cases.
The petitioner asked the respondents (the state and the central government) for advice on how to prevent crimes such as honor killings and other honor crimes, submit a national and state plan of action to reduce and control such crimes, and instruct state governments to create or establish special cells for the safety and well-being of couples by the Indian Constitution.
Applications have also been made to order the state governments to issue a writ of mandamus, which would require them to prosecute each instance of honor killings and take proper action to address these honor crimes and the malevolent attitudes of certain segments of society.
According to the petition, the following behaviors or grounds are seen to be connected to honor crimes:
* Losing one’s virginity before getting married
* Pregnancy before marriage
* Adultery
* Having relationships that are not approved
* Refusal to accept a marriage proposal from someone
* Plea for divorce
* Children’s custody following a divorce
* Leaving the marital home without permission or deserting the family
* Generating rumors among friends and family or a public controversy
* Sexual assault
* Core Issues in the Case
Does the ‘Indian Constitution’ give recognition to the right to ‘select one’s life partner’? Should the ‘Indian government’ take the appropriate steps to guarantee this right?
Does the country’s legal system acknowledge the role of unofficial organizations like Khap Panchayat in administering justice, and is it effective enough to monitor and stop the conservative actions these organizations take?
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court ruled that the ‘human rights of a daughter, sister, or son’ are not mortgaged to the so-called or so-understood honor of family, clan, or the collective.” The Supreme Court emphasized that the freedom to select one’s life partner is an inalienable right; marriage between two individuals does not require consent from one’s family, community, or clan.
“When two adults choose each other as ‘life partner’ consensually, it is a manifestation of their choice recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution,” the court stated.
According to the Supreme Court, a “khap panchayat” is any individual or group of individuals who have gathered or assembled at any time to denounce any marriage—including a proposed marriage—that is not legally forbidden because it has dishonored the caste or community customs or brought disgrace to all or any of the members of the assembly, the family, or other residents.
The Home Department Secretary of the concerned state must advise the Superintendent of Police in the concerned districts to make the officer in charge at police stations in designated locations extra cautious if an instance of intercaste or interreligious marriage within their jurisdiction is discovered.
Any police officer or District Administration officer who is aware of an intended Khap Panchayat congregation must notify their immediate superior officer right away. He must also promptly notify the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the jurisdiction.
The Home Department of the Government of India should take the initiative to work with state governments to raise awareness among law enforcement agencies and all stakeholders. This will involve identifying preventative measures and working to implement the constitutional goals of social justice and the rule of law.
Foundational Legal Principle of the Case
Right to Select a Life Mate: The Court acknowledged that a person has the right to select a life mate free from social or familial influence. Article 21 (freedom to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental freedom to marry whoever one chooses, regardless of caste or religion.
The practice of honor killings, or violence against people who marry outside of their caste or religion, was denounced by the Court. It ruled that such actions violate a person’s right to life and personal liberty and are unlawful and unconstitutional.
State Duty to Protect: The Court ordered the government to make sure that law enforcement organizations take the appropriate actions to stop and prevent honor killings. It underlined that couples who are threatened by their families or communities because of their marital decisions should have police protection.
Instructions for Police and Authorities: To protect couples in intercaste or interreligious marriages, the Court established comprehensive instructions for the police and authorities. These instructions covered how to file complaints, offer police protection, and act quickly to stop threats or acts of violence.
Prevention of Harassment: The Court emphasized that freedom of choice in terms of marriage must be respected and emphasized the significance of preventing any harassment, intimidation, or injury inflicted on such couples by their families or communities.
Steps Ordered to Prevent Honour Killings
Young married couples (of any caste, religion, or other marriage that is opposed by their families, local community, or Khap) as well as young bachelor-bachelorette couples (whose relationship is opposed by their families, local community, or Khap), will be accommodated by safe homes. The management of these safe homes may fall under the purview of the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate.
The District Magistrate or Police Superintendent should handle the charge of a threat against such a couple or family with great caution. First and foremost, since the bachelor and bachelorette are adults, their ages must be determined. If necessary, they can then receive all the logistical assistance they need to legally wed and/or register for police protection, if they so want.
After marriage, if they so choose, they can remain in the safe house for a little price for a month. Depending on the threat assessment, this period may be extended each month for a maximum of one year.
An officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police shall be appointed to conduct the preliminary investigation of the complaint concerning the couple. He must submit a report to the Superintendent of Police within a week after verifying such threats.
The jurisdictional police official must promptly file a formal complaint under the applicable provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 141, 143, and 503, read with Section 506 of the IPC, if the local police learn that the Khap Panchayat has met and issued any directive to act against an intercaste or interreligious marriage.
Emergency security must be provided to the couple or family, and if necessary, relocation to a safe house must be considered by the state government, which should build such homes at each district headquarters.
If Khap Panchayat membership is discovered, members will be accused of assisting and abetting or conspiracy, as applicable.
Reproductive Rights and Indian Law: A Constitutional and Human Rights Approach
Conclusion
The case of ‘Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India (2018)’ has also been thoroughly examined. We have covered the definition of honor killing, the areas in India where it occurs more frequently, the case’s facts and issues, the arguments of the petitioner and respondents, the definition of khap panchayat and its legality, the regulation of marriage by national and international laws, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the particular case, and the preventive, corrective, and punitive measures that the court has issued.
Killing or murder that is carried out by one upon another, be it even a stranger or family member, is termed as an honor killing effort to maintain what they consider to be the dignity and honor of themselves or their family. Religion, caste, race, and all other types of social hierarchy play a role in such killings.
Discrimination means treating a particular group or person as inferior or less significant than another group or person. One can discriminate against another for any reason, such as caste, religion, gender, race, or age. Such discrimination among people may lead to the commission of some harmful acts. One of those is called ‘honor killing’. Today, we are going to present a case relating to the same.
REFERENCE:
https://legalvidhiya.com/shakti-vahini-v-union-of-india-2018-7-scc-192-honour-killing-is-a-crime-making-a-person-to-marry-other-than-his-own-choice-is-violation-of-article-21/?amp=1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92846055/
https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-09/CS010620181230_1%5B1%5D.pdf
About the Author
