Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Shakti Vahini – Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India and others – Respondent(s)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 231 OF 2010
Dcided On : 27-03-2018
(2006) 5 SCC 475; (2011) 6 SCC 396; (2014) 4 SCC 786; (2016) 9 SCC 541; (2017) 4 SCC 397; AIR 2010 SC 3071 – Referred
(b) Rule of law – Two adult individuals agreeing to enter into wedlock – Consent of family or community or clan not necessary – Such consent only has pious primacy – Articles 19 and 21, Constitution of India. (Para 41)
(1994) 3 SCC 569 – Relied upon
(c) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Life and liberty sans dignity and choice – Meaningless – States’ duty. (Para 43, 48)
(1989) 2 SCC 574 – Relied upon
(d) Honour Crimes – Prohibitive degrees for marriages relate to recognition of matrimonial status – Prohibition of sex determination under Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition on Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and spreading awareness to sustain sex ratio – Has nothing to do with institution of marriage. (Para 46)
(2013) 4 SCC 1; (2016) 10 SCC 265 – Referred
(e) Honour crimes – Khap panchayat – No such assembly should take the law into their hands – They cannot assume character of law implementing agency – Such acts being illegal and impermissible cannot be recognized or accepted. (Para 47)
(1984) 2 SCC 244; (1997) 6 SCC 241; (2006) 8 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(f) Honour crimes – Bringing a law appositely covering the field of honour killing recommended – Guidelines for preventive, remedial and punitive measures issued. (Para 52, 53)
(2013) 14 SCC 672; (2011) 6 SCC 405 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The instant Writ Petition has been preferred seeking 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.
Finding of the Court:
Honour crimes including honour killing are illegal.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
Honour crimes, including honour killings, are illegal and constitute serious violations of fundamental rights, particularly the right to personal liberty, dignity, and individual autonomy (!) (!) (!) .
The right to choose one's life partner is a constitutional right protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Consent of family or community is not necessary once both individuals are adults and agree to marry (!) (!) (!) .
Honour crimes are rooted in social and cultural notions of family or community honour, often leading to violence against those who exercise their personal choice. Such acts include murder, physical violence, and social ostracism, which are punishable under the law (!) (!) (!) .
Extra-constitutional bodies like Khap Panchayats or similar assemblies have no legal authority to impose punishments or take law into their own hands. Their actions are illegal and cannot be justified under any social or cultural pretext (!) (!) .
The State has a constitutional obligation to protect individual rights, including the right to marry freely, and must take proactive measures to prevent honour crimes. This includes identifying regions where such crimes are prevalent and deploying law enforcement accordingly (!) (!) .
Preventive measures include issuing advisories, increasing police vigilance, and preventing unlawful assemblies or gatherings of groups like Khap Panchayats. Law enforcement agencies should record and act upon intelligence regarding such gatherings (!) (!) .
Remedial measures involve lodging FIRs against those involved in honour crimes, providing security and safe houses for threatened couples, and ensuring prompt investigation and prosecution. Special cells and helplines should be established to assist victims and prevent violence (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Punitive measures require disciplinary action against officials who fail to act or act negligently, as well as swift prosecution of offenders. Cases related to honour crimes should be tried expeditiously in designated courts to ensure swift justice (!) (!) (!) .
The law prohibits any assembly or group, including Khap Panchayats, from taking law into their own hands, and such acts should be met with criminal proceedings and appropriate legal action (!) (!) .
International conventions also recognize that culture, tradition, or honour cannot justify crimes like honour killings. Such justifications are unacceptable and should be legally condemned (!) (!) .
The State and law enforcement agencies must work in coordination, sensitize communities, and promote awareness to eradicate honour crimes, respecting constitutional rights and individual liberties (!) (!) .
The Court emphasizes the importance of protecting individual autonomy and liberty, especially the right of adults to marry freely, and condemns any social or community pressure that seeks to undermine these rights (!) (!) (!) .
The document recommends the enactment of specific legislation to comprehensively address honour killings and related crimes, emphasizing the need for legal reforms aligned with constitutional principles (!) .
Overall, the judgment underscores that honour crimes are a grave violation of human rights, and the State must take comprehensive, multi-faceted action—preventive, remedial, and punitive—to eliminate such social evils.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, CJI.
Assertion of choice is an insegregable facet of liberty and dignity. That is why the French philosopher 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 their 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 the ingrained sense of dignity do not countenance such treatment inasmuch as the pattern of behaviour is based on some extra-constitutional perception. Class honour, howsoever perceived, cannot smother the choice of an individual which he or she is entitled to enjoy under our compassionate Constitution. And this right of enjoyment of liberty deserves 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 seeking 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 conducting 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 chilling 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 cruel instill immense fear that compels the victims to commit suicide 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 destruction of fundamental rights take place in the name of class honour or group right or perverse individual perception of honour. Such individual or individuals 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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
