Introduction

• In this case various measures such as remedial, preventive and punitive were issued by the Supreme Court to stop honour killing.

Facts

• In this case the petitioner was an organization authorized by National Commission for Women to conduct a research study on honour killings in Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh.
• The instances of people not getting married has increased due to the fear of honour killing.
• The petitioner organization filed a writ petition of mandamus before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India (COI) against the State Government.
• The petitioner contented that formation of Khap Panchayat is unconstitutional which gives the decision of killing someone just because the couple wants to get married.
• The petitioner pleaded to release effective measures and preventive steps to counter crimes such as honour killings and other honour crimes, to submit a national and state plan of action to reduce and control the crimes of the said nature and to also direct the state governments to make or constitute special cells for the safety and well-being of couples.
• The petitioner also mentioned the list of reasons for which the honour crimes take place as:
  • Loss of virginity outside marriage.
  • Premarital pregnancy.
  • Infidelity.
  • Having unapproved relationships.
  • Refusing an arranged marriage.
  • Asking for divorce.
  • Demanding custody of children after divorce.
  • Leaving the family or marital home without permission.
  • Causing scandal or gossip in the community.
  • Falling victim to rape.
• It was argued by the respondent that honor killing is honour killings are considered murder as defined by Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code1860 (IPC) and are therefore punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

Issues Involved

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

Observations

• The Supreme Court in this case held that the so-called honor of the family cannot be maintained by killing the people.
  • It is also held by the Supreme Court that Right to choose one’s partner is a fundamental right irrespective of family, community, or clan agreement which is incorporated under Article 19 and Article 21 of the COI.
• The Supreme Court ordered the State Government to strictly check the Villages, districts, Sub-Divisions where the institutes like Khap Panchayat are working and aggravating the practice of honour killing.
  • There is no such institution in any law like khap panchayat in India.
• The Supreme Court also ordered the Secretary of the concerned States’s Home Departments to issue directives to the c of the concerned districts.
  • The officer in charge of the police stations in the identified areas is extra cautious.
  • If any police officer or District Administration officer becomes aware of any proposed Khap Panchayat gathering, then immediately inform the higher authorities.
• The Supreme Court also issued remedial measures and preventive measures that can be taken by the victims and the government respectively to stop such practices.
  • The Supreme Court also issued punitive measures against the practice of honor killing.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court allowed the present petition and issued the preventive, remedial and punitive measures to curb out the practice of honour killing.

Note:

• Section 300 of IPC is now covered under Section 101 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS).
• Section 302 of IPC is now covered under Section 103 of BNS.