Honour Killing in India

Satendra Kumar Sharma*

Introduction

An honour killing is the murder of a member of a family or social group by other

members, due to the belief of the perpetrators that the victim has

brought dishonour upon the family or community. Honour killings are directed mostly

against women and girls, but have been extended to men now.

The perceived dishonor is normally the result of one of the numerous behaviours, or

the suspicion of such behaviours. These behaviours are dressing in a manner

unacceptable to the family or community, wanting to terminate or prevent an arranged

marriage or desiring to marry by own choice, especially if to a member of a social

group deemed inappropriate, engaging in sexual acts outside the marriage.

Honour killing may occur due to many other reasons but main object of my article is

to discuss about only those honour killings which occur due to inter-caste marriage,

own choice marriage, marriage against the will of the family, extra marital-

relationship, sexual relationship before marriage especially by the girls, etc. It is also

the part of my article to bring out those issues which are of great discussion among all

classes of the people and also the solution of those issues, if need. Society is not ready

to accept this kind of marriage in any way. And society reacts like as if it swallowed

some poisonous food. The behaviour of the Police is more ridiculous and disgusting at

the commission of inter-caste marriage or other such behaviours which cause honour

killing. The action of the Police is not sincere in arresting the corrupt leaders and

bureaucrats, who are increasing their own bank balance by robbing National

Exchequer and also innocent people of the country. Whenever a couple marry against

the will of the family, false FIR is lodged against the boy and his family members this

way they have to suffer a lot. The Supreme Court of India is clear that a mature

couple can marry and live according to their own choice.

Concept of Marriage

Procreation is essential for survival of all forms of life including man because no

living being is immortal. Like animals, human beings also require mutual co-

operation of two individuals with different sex structures for procreation acts. Urge in

1

living beings in this regard is called sex urge. To channelize the sex-urge, the concept

of marriage developed in the society of human beings.1

In broad sense marriage means a legally and socially sanctioned union of man and

woman that accords status to them as husband and wife and legitimacy to their

offspring. It involves certain rights and duties between the parties entering into

wedlock. For Hindus, marriage is a sacrament and not a contract. It is one of the ten

“Sanskaras” (ceremonies of reformation) which one has to undergo at the time of

entering “Grishtha Ashram” (Life of house holder). [Other three Ashram are first

“Bramhacharya” (Life of celibacy and studentship), third “Vanaprastha” (Life of

recluse) and fourth “Sanyas” (Life of renunciation)]. According to Manu, an

unmarried man cannot perfect his personality and must be regarded as imperfect and

incomplete. His personality gets developed and perfected only upon union of his wife,

himself and their children.2

As such for Hindus, marriage is a holy bond. Many of the religious acts cannot be

performed by Hindus without being accompanied by his wife. That is why wife is

known as “Sahadharmini” or Dharmapatni. Mahabharat, in its chapter Anuparva

declares a man’s half part as his wife and names her “Ardhangini”.3

Unlike Hinduism, in Islam marriage is a purely a civil contract not a sacrament. A

proposal to marry is made with the promise to pay “Mehar” which is accepted by

female before two witnesses. For Parsi also marriage is a contract with a ceremony of

“Ashirvada”. Similarly, among Jews it is performed with written contract Known as

“Kutuba”. Law applicable to Christian also treats the marriage more as a contract than

a sacrament.4

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between two opposite sex people, which

are male and female. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures,

religion and tradition but the main object is the same of all the religion. It is usually a

relationship for giving the validity to sex and children.

1*Satendra Kumar Sharma LL.M. 4th Semester, Noida International University, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Prafulla C. Pant, Law of Marriage, Divorce Other Matrimonial Disputes, 3 (Orient Publishing Company, New Delhi, 5th edn., 2005).2 Ibid.3 Ibid.4 Supra note 1 at 4.

2

Generally, marriage is done between the two people of opposite sex of same caste of

same religion as per the choice of their family and society but since many years this

concept has been changed and a newly kind of marriage is coming into existence, e. i.,

inter-caste marriage. Sex before marriage, pre-marital relationship, extra-marital

relationship, marriage with own choice etc. These are the examples of those behaviour

which unacceptable by the society, if done by the girls and women. Inter-Caste

Marriage is a marriage in which bride and bridegroom both are of different caste, may

be of different religion. This kind of marriage is rapidly growing these days. Should I

say it a new kind of marriage or not, it is not a question of discuss but it is considered

a new concept in Indian society. But according to me this is not a new concept for

Indian society and is prevailing since ancient time in India. In India it not only

considered as new concept but also it is considered as social stigma on the family.

People are not ready to accept it with open hands. For it there may be many reasons.

Some people are of opinion that it would be a social stigma on the family, if they

allow their children to marry in different caste or different religion.

Reaction of the Society on the Marriage against its Will

The Indian society is not ready to accept these kinds of behaviours at any rate.

Whenever such kinds of behaviours come into light, society protests it by all means.

The couples indulged in such behaviours always have to suffer and they have to leave

their home because in their family there is none going to accept them. And many

times couples are killed brutally. For example one couple was killed in Mehrana

village near Barsana in nineties after the judgment of a panchayat. This couple was

hanged binding their legs with the branch of a tree and was burnt alive.5

Another honour killing reported in Punjab. On Wednesday, Feb 4, 2011 a 17-years-

old girl was shot dead reportedly by her own father. The incident occurred in Mandi

Ahmedgarh. Reports suggest that Nirmal Singh, the father of the girl was angry over

her eloping with a boy six months ago and so committed the crime. Police arrested

Singh after his wife complained that he had shot their daughter dead.6

One more story of honour killing reported, but this time it was from the Shivaganga

district of South Indian state Tamil Nadu not from North India. The horrific cycle of

honor killings to protect the honour of a family or a caste has now spread its tentacles

5 “Premi Yugal Ko Jinda Jalane Vale Ki Maut”, 8 Navbharat Times, March 1, 2012.6 http://www.news.oneindia.in (Last modified on March 2, 2012).

3

to entire India. In Shivganga, 20 year-old Megala and 24-year-old Sivakumar, were

told that they could not marry because of family’s honor. Despite Megala’s love, her

family married her off in June. She eloped with Sivakumar ten days after the wedding.

Her family traced the couple and killed Sivakumar with sickles. The killers included

Megala’s father and brother. Megala says that everyone in her village, including her

mother, justified the killing of her lover as she fetched shame to her community and

village.7

Nirupama, a 22-years-old journalist was found murdered at her home in Jharkand.

Nirupama, hails from a Brahmin family, was in love with a boy from another caste.

This was the reason for her death also. Nirupama’s family members including mother

brutally killed her for saving the honor of their family. This is the grade of rural

Indian villages living under the clutches of feudal landlords. Even a woman journalist

was not able to survive this kind of ruthless ethos. Then think, what is the condition of

an ordinary village girl in rural India? There are many Nirupamas in Indian villages,

but most of the stories are unseen and unheard. No one knows the official figures of

this kind of murders. According to the data collected by India Democratic Women’s

association, the number of caste killings is more than thousand in every year.8

On May2, 2011 Rajiv Verma and Renu Pal stoned to death in Farrukhabad, Uttar

Pradesh, as they belonged to different caste.9 On June 30, 2010 NRI was arrested in

Amritsar for killing his step-daughter who was in love with a lower caste boy.10 On

June, bodies of two lovers found hanging from a tree in Bhiwani, Haryana.11 On June

21, 2011 Inter-caste couple Monica and Kuldeep was murdered by her brother and

cousin in Delhi. Monica’s cousin, who had eloped with a boy of different caste, found

murdered too.12 Gaurav Saini of Delhi and Monica Dagar of Sahibabad married in

July 2009. She died mysteriously in September 2009.13 Manoj and Babli were killed

in Karnal, Haryana,14

7 Ibid.8 Ibid.9 http://www.dna.india.com (Visited on March 3, 2012).10Ibid.11Ibid.12 Ibid.13 Ibid.14 Ibid.

4

In Lata Singh’s15 case the petitioner was a young woman who is a graduate and at the

relevant time was pursuing her Masters course in Hindi in the Lucknow University.

Due to the sudden death of her parents she started living with her brother Ajay Pratap

Singh at LDA Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow, where she did her intermediate in

1997 and graduation in 2000. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 2.11.2000 she left

her brother's house of her own free will and got married at Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi

to one Bramha Nand Gupta who has business in Delhi and other places and they have

a child out of this wedlock. Thereafter on 4.11.2000, the petitioner's brother lodged a

missing person report at Sarojini Nagar Police Station, Lucknow and consequently the

police arrested two sisters of the petitioner's husband along with the husband. The

persons arrested were Mamta Gupta, Sangita Gupta (sisters of Brahma Nand Gupta),

as well as Rakesh Gupta (husband of Mamta Gupta) and Kallu Gupta cousin of the

petitioner's husband. Mamta was in jail with her one month old child.16

The petitioner's brothers Ajay Pratap Singh, Shashi Pratap Singh and Anand Pratap

Singh were furious because the petitioner underwent an inter-caste marriage, and

hence they went to the petitioner's husband's paternal residence and vehemently beat

up her husband's mother and uncle, threw the luggage, furniture, utensils, etc. from

the house and locked it with their lock. One brother of the petitioner's husband was

allegedly locked in a room by the petitioner's brothers for four or five days without

meals and water. The petitioner's brothers also allegedly cut away the harvest crops of

the agricultural field of the petitioner's husband and sold it, and they also took forcible

possession of the field. They also lodged a false police report alleging kidnapping of

the petitioner against her husband and his relatives at Police Station Sarojini Nagar,

Lucknow, due to which the sisters of the petitioner's husband, and the husband of one

of the sisters, were arrested and detained in Lucknow jail. The petitioner's brothers

also illegally took possession of the shop of the petitioner's husband. The petitioner's

husband has a shop at Badan Singh Market, Rangpuri in the name of Gupta Helmet

Shop whose possession was forcibly taken over by her brothers.17

The petitioner's brothers are threatening to kill the petitioner's husband and his

relatives, and kidnap and kill her also. The Gupta family members are afraid of going

to Lucknow out of fear of violence by the petitioner's brothers, who are of a criminal 15Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475.16 Id at 477.17 Id at 477-478.

5

bent. It is alleged that the petitioner's husband and relatives have been falsely framed

by her brothers Shashi Pratap Singh, Ajay Pratap Singh and Anand Pratap Singh who

were furious because of the inter-caste marriage of the petitioner with Bramha Nand

Gupta.18

In Maya Kaur’s case19 Rajvinder Kaur was the youngest daughter of Maya Kaur and

Baldev Singh Sardar. In addition to Rajvinder Kaur the couple had another daughter

Sulakshana, and two sons Ranprit Singh and Amrit Singh and the entire family was

residing in a small township near Panvel City on the outskirts of Mumbai. While

studying in school Rajvinder Kaur fell in love with Ravinder Singh and the

relationship culminated in a secret marriage between the two, as Rajvinders family

did not approve of the relationship on the premise that Ravinder Singh belonged to an

inferior caste and was also financially weak. It appears that after Sulakshanas

marriage, Baldev Singh and Maya Kaur decided that it was appropriate that Rajvinder

Kaur too should be married off. A suitable boy was accordingly selected by them for

her but before a final decision could be taken Rajvinder Kaur told the proposed

bridegroom of her love affair with Ravinder Singh. He nevertheless still agreed to the

marriage. Faced with this difficult situation, Rajvinder Kaur informed her parents that

she was already married with Ravinder Singh. This information caused consternation

in her family and faced with hostility she left home and shifted in with her husband

and his family. She was, however, repeatedly threatened by her relatives including

her parents that she would have to suffer the consequences of her misconduct. Maya

Kaur and Nirmal Kaur, Rajvinder’s maternal aunt, also demanded the return of the

ornaments that she had been wearing when she had left her parents home, but she told

them that they could collect these articles from the police station (in the presence of

the police) as she had already lodged a complaint. On 30th May 1999 at about 8.30

p.m. Rajvinder Kaur was informed that her mother and maternal aunt had come to

visit her. She accordingly invited them upstairs to the first floor and on their demand

handed over the ornaments to her mother. Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur also told

Rajvinder Kaur that her maternal uncle (Mama) Bhagwan Singh had also come to

visit her and was waiting downstairs. Lakhmindar Kaur, Rajvinders mother-in-law

told Maya Kaur to call her brother upstairs. In the meantime, it appears Ravinder

Singh went out on to the balcony to get his shirt and saw some persons armed with 18 Id at 478.19 Maya Kaur Baldev Singh Sardar v. The State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 654.

6

weapons in their hands hanging around suspiciously and apprehending mischief, he

asked his brother Harvindar Singh to immediately call some of his friends. Harvindar

Singh rushed downstairs in an attempt to do so but soon returned with a patch of

blood on his shirt on the abdomen and fell in the prayer room.Rajvinder Kaur then

saw Jagpal Singh, husband of Nirmal Kaur, Kawaljit Singh, cousin of Maya Kaur and

Nirmal Kaur, Bakhtavar Singh, maternal uncle of Maya Kaur, Kuldip Singh, a close

relative of Maya Kaur, Baldev Singh and Bhagwan Singh climbing the stair case with

weapons in their hands. Maya Kaur and Nirmal Kaur however left the place and went

out of the gate. Rajvinder Kaur, sensing danger shouted for help but somebody

entered the balcony and pushed her therefrom and she fell on the ground floor

sustaining severe injuries. She also heard some voices speaking in Punjabi suggesting

that she be killed and somebody replying that she was already dead. Rajvinder Kaur,

grievously hurt, went crawling to the house of one Narula, a neighbour, and informed

him of the assault on her family on which he called the police. The Police reached the

site after a short time and found that Ravinder Singh, husband of Rajvinder Kaur, her

brother-in-law Harvindar Singh, and her- in-laws Dilip Singh and Lakhwinder Kaur

had all been killed.20

In Gurha Sarah in Bijnaur a girl of 19 years and a boy of 22 years named Arun were

attacked with sharp weapens on Saturday, March 31, 2012. As per the information

from S.P. Dalveer Singh the Girl is dead and the condition of the boy is very serious

and he is in hospital.21

The murderers thought that their respect had ruined by the couple so they killed them

brutally. About which type of respect and honor they talk? It is just a fake illusion

made by the society to talk about respect and honor on getting married by the couples

as per their own choice. What was the mistake of above mentioned couple who was

burnt alive? Could the murderers of above couple get their prestige and honour by

killing the innocent couple who thought to live a better life with one-another? The

Indian society boasts of having a good religious history and celebrates many festivals

of those persons who also got married without the permission of their parents, for

example Lord Ram. Lord Ram did not inform his parents before his marriage but his

parents were very happy instead of getting angry or furious. I want to ask one

20 Ibid.21 “Premi Ke Sath Bhagne Par Youvti Ki Hatya”, 10 The Navbharat Times, April 5, 2012.

7

question to all the persons. My question is this why they celebrate Diwali while the

person who is the main factor behind it was a person who got married without prior

information or permission of his parents. I suggest all of those persons who oppose

inter-caste marriage to welcome this kind of practice with open hands because it is

totally out of their control. Whatsoever they can try but this practice has engulfed not

only the Indian society but whole world. No one is going to support those foolish

persons who are against it. If any person shows his anger on the innocent couple, he

will not be escaped with the hammer of Law. Other behaviours also coming into

existence and no one can stop such practices but to accept. The people who cannot

accept such behaviour can only break their relations with the couple concerned.

There are many reasons due to which some people of our society are not ready to

accept these kinds of inter-caste marriages. Some of people oppose the marriage even

of same caste if the candidate is not of their choice. If a boy or girl tells to their family

members that they want to marry a specific person even of same caste, it is similarly

protested by the family like inter-caste marriage or above mentioned behaviours. In

such case status of the family is the main factor of protesting such marriages. If a rich

boy wants to marry with a poor girl, it is also protested by the family. If a rich girl

wants to marry with a poor boy, it is also protested by the family. Reasons of

objection behind all kind of those marriages which are out of caste or without the

permission of family. The persons who talk about honor of the family have ever

thought what is honor? To kill innocent couples brutally, is it the honor of family or it

makes safe the honour or it increase the honor of the family? I think that it is the

foolishness of those people of the society who are have committed honour killing or

willing to commit the same.

The people appreciate Gandhiji, Swami Vivekanand, Dayanand Sarswati, Kabir, Raja

Ram Mohan Rai who were against the caste system but they don’t follow their

education.

According to me people should leave their heathenness towards inter-caste marriage

and all the people of all the classes should welcome this kind of marriages with open

hands so that harmonious condition may prevail in Indian society and innocent couple

may not be murdered.

Verdict of Supreme Court

8

In Lata Singh’s case22 the Apex Court made it clear that there is no bar to an inter-

caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law.23

The Apex Court held that the petitioner is free to marry anyone she likes or live with

anyone she likes. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage

Act or any other law. The Apex Court said that no offence was committed by any of

the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the

Court as well as of the administrative machinery at the instance of the petitioner's

brothers who were only furious because the petitioner married outside her caste.24

In Maya Kaur Baldevsingh Sardar v. The State of Maharashtra25 Rajvinder Kaur was

the youngest daughter of Maya Kaur and Baldev Singh Sardar. She married without

the permission of her parents. It was not liked by her family members and some of her

relatives. When she was at her husband’s home, her family members and relatives

attacked and several people were killed in this attack. The Police reached the site after

a short time of the attack and found that Ravinder Singh, husband of Rajvinder Kaur,

her brother-in-law Harvindar Singh, Dilip Singh and Lakhwinder Kaur had all been

killed. She could only escape because the murders thought that she was dead.26 In this

case the murders were awarded with death penalty and life imprisonment by District

Judge. Later the Apex Court convert the death penalty into life imprisonment.27

In Bhagwan Dass’ case28 the Supreme Court of India observed that honour killings

have become commonplace in many parts of the country, particularly in Haryana,

western U.P., and Rajasthan. Often young couples who fall in love have to seek

shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts.

The Apex Court held that there is nothing honourable in honour killings, and they are

nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted, persons with feudal minds. In the

opinion of Justice Markandey Katjuand Gyan Sudha Mishra honour killings, for

whatever reason, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death

punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on

our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilized behaviour.

22 Supra note 15 at 475.23 Supra note 15 at 479.24 Ibid.25 Supra note 19.26 (2007) 12 SCC 657-658.27 Supra note 25.28 Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT) of Delhi (2011) 6 SCC 396.

9

All persons who are planning to perpetrate `honour' killings should know that the

gallows await them.29

Main object of the illustration of these cases is to tell that inter-caste marriage is not a

crime under any law. And none can misuse law to harass a person who married out of

his caste or married without the permission of their parents.

Action of Police

Whenever a couple gets marriage out of the caste or without the permission of the

family members, the couple has to face not only furious temper of the family but also

the misconduct of the Police. Police is not conducting its duty well. If an inter-caste

marriage comes into light, a false is lodged against the boy and his family. It doesn’t

matter for Police that the allegations made against boy are right or wrong. Many times

a false FIR under provisions of Penal Code30, is lodged against the boy and his family.

For instance- in the case of Lata Singh v. State Of U.P31 the petitioner was a young

woman who is a graduate and at the relevant time was pursuing her Masters course in

Hindi in the Lucknow University. Due to the sudden death of her parents she started

living with her brother Ajay Pratap Singh at LDA Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow,

where she did her intermediate in 1997 and graduation in 2000. It is alleged by the

petitioner that on 2.11.2000 she left her brother's house of her own free will and got

married at Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi to one Bramha Nand Gupta who has business in

Delhi and other places and they have a child out of this wedlock. Thereafter on

4.11.2000, the petitioner's brother lodged a missing person report at Sarojini Nagar

Police Station, Lucknow and consequently the police arrested two sisters of the

petitioner's husband along with the husband. The persons arrested were Mamta Gupta,

Sangita Gupta (sisters of Brahma Nand Gupta), as well as Rakesh Gupta (husband of

Mamta Gupta) and Kallu Gupta cousin of the petitioner's husband. Mamta was in jail

with her one month old child. The petitioner's brothers Ajay Pratap Singh, Shashi

Pratap Singh and Anand Pratap Singh were furious because the petitioner underwent

an inter-caste marriage.32

29Ibid.30 Indian Penal Code, 1962.31 Supra note 15 at 477.32 Supra note 15 at 477.

10

Sometimes Police don’t know the real fact of the matter and register FIR under the

provision of abduction33 or kidnapping34 against the boy and his family. But many

times the real situation is obvious but it ignored by the Police and the action against

the boy along with his family is taken by the Police. In trial the fake accused are

acquitted by the court but before the acquittal they have to suffer a lot.

This kind of action of Police is not acceptable a bit. That is why it is my submission

that Police should conduct the duty properly. There are many criminals who are liable

to go to jail but are enjoying the freedom outside the Jail. Lovers are not criminals so

let them enjoy their life freely. If anyone tries to interfere in the freedom of lovers or

harass them, it is the violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the

Constitution.35

Whenever honour killing occur the police remain silent instead of taking action. In my

own home town a Brahmin family came to know about the relationship of a girl of the

family with boy named Varun Jaiswal. The boy was beaten by the girl’s family

members brutally. The boy could recover after fifteen days. This was the incident of

last week of February, 2012 and in the first week of March the girl was found dead

due to fire burnt. The people whispered that the girl was murdered by his family

members but it was the general notion that the girl committed suicide. Whatever may

be the reason of the death of the girl-suicide or murder but the police didn’t take any

action on this death.

The Supreme Court of India should give some directions to the Police to investigate

before registering the FIR in all the matter. If allegations are true only then the FIR

should be lodged and accused should be arrested. And this direction should also be

given to the police if any honour killing comes into existence, to investigate the

matter well and take appropriate actions.

In Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu36, the Supreme Court observed that the

caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it

is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges

before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter- caste marriages are in fact in the national

33 See, Section 364, Indian Penal Code, 1962.34 See, Section 363, Indian Penal Code, 1962.35 The Constitution of India, 1950.36 (2011) 6 SCC 405.

11

interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news

are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who

undergo inter- caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually

committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are

wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. 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. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police

authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major

undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a

major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of

violence, and 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 proceedings

by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such

persons as provided by law.37

We sometimes hear of `honour' killings of such persons who undergo inter-caste or

interreligious 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.

In this case the Apex Court gave some directions to the administrative and police

officials to take strong measures to prevent such atrocious acts. If any such incidents

happen, apart from instituting criminal proceedings against those responsible for such

atrocities, the State Government is directed to immediately suspend the District

Magistrate/Collector 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 prevent

the incident if it has not already occurred but they have knowledge of it in advance, or

if it has occurred, they do not promptly apprehend the culprits and others involved

37 Ibid.

12

and institute criminal proceedings against them, as in our opinion they will be deemed

to be directly or indirectly accountable in this connection.

Law Commission and Khap Panchayat

The Law Commission of India in its consultation paper named “Unlawful Interference

of Caste Panchayats etc. with Marriages in the Name of Honour: A Suggested

Legislative Framework” deals with the issues related with “Honour Killing” and

“Khap Panchyats” as follows:

Incidents of murder and other grave offences committed against persons marrying or

proposing to marry sagotras or outside their castes/religions are periodically reported.

It is learnt that number of cases goes unreported for fear of reprisals or cascading

effects. The intervention of caste/community assemblies in the name of ‘Khap

Panchayats’, ‘Katta Panchayats’ etc. in the occurrence of these offences and other

related incidents involving serious life and liberty consequences, are frequently

noticed. Such assemblies gathered on caste lines assume to themselves the power and

authority to declare on and deal with ‘objectionable’ matrimonies and exhibit least

regard for life and liberty and are not deterred by the processes of administration of

justice.

The penal law lacks direct application to the illegal acts of such caste assemblies and

needs to be amended. Meanwhile innocent youth are harassed and victimized while

such assemblies continue to wield unhindered authority and also seem to resist any

suggestion of being subjected to any social control.

The pernicious practice of Khap Panchayats and the like taking law into their own

hands and pronouncing on the invalidity 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.

Sagotra marriages are not prohibited by law, whatever may be the view in olden

times. The Hindu Marriage Disabilities 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

13

sub-divisions of same caste. The Hindu Marriage Act does not prohibit sagotra or

inter-caste marriages.

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 community honour or family honour. There are reports that drastic action

including wrongful confinement, persistent harassment, mental torture, infliction 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. Social boycotts and other illegal sanctions

affecting the young couple, the families and even a section of local inhabitants are

quite often resorted to. The cumulative effect of all such acts has also public order

dimensions.

Some proposals are being mooted proposing amendments to Section 300 I.P.C. by

way of including what is called ‘Honour Killing’ as murder and shifting the burden of

proof to the accused. These proposals have been studied. The views from various

quarters at an informal level have also been ascertained. After a preliminary

examination of these and certain other models of law, a broad framework of proposed

law to deal with the situation has been prepared and annexed herewith. The views of

the public are invited with reference thereto.

The idea underlying the aforesaid provisions is that there must be a threshold bar

against congregation or assembly for the purpose of discussing on and objecting to the

conduct of young persons of marriageable age marrying according to their choice, the

ground of objection being that they belong to the same gotra or to different castes or

communities. The Panchayatdars 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 placed 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 immunity 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

14

should be treated as an offence as it has the potential to endanger the lives and

liberties of individuals concerned.

The proposed law is not in derogation of the provisions of Indian Penal Code which

can take care of various offences of serious nature perpetrated by the members of

caste panchayats in prosecution of their unlawful objective.

The Commission is prima facie of the view that there is no need for introducing a

provision in Section 300 IPC in order to bring the so-called ‘honour killings’ within

the ambit of this provision. The existing provisions in IPC are adequate enough to

take care of the situations leading to overt acts of killing or causing bodily harm to the

targeted person who allegedly undermined the honour of the caste or community. The

motive behind killing a person does not furnish real justification to introduce a

separate provision in section 300. Probably, the addition of such clause may create

confusion and interpretational difficulties.

Further, shifting the onus on to the accused facing accusations of involvement in the

serious offence of murder etc or abetment thereof is not desirable. Such a move will

be against the cardinal principles of jurisprudence accepted and absorbed into our

criminal justice system. If burden of proof has to be shifted in such a case, logically, it

will have to be done in a large number of other heinous crimes. A holistic approach is

called for and any attempt to drastically expand the rigor of criminal procedure to

cope up with ad hoc situations may be counter-productive. The introduction of such a

drastic provision needs to be avoided. As an alternative to this, the Commission is of

the prima facie view that a presumption could be raised in respect of commission of

the prohibited acts in clauses 3 and 4 of the proposed Bill- The Prohibition of

Unlawful Assembly (Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliance) Bill,

2011, if he or she is a member of an unlawful assembly convened for the purpose of

discussing and condemning the perfectly legal conduct of a young couple– married or

intending to marry. This is necessary having regard to the fact that the task of

identification of roles that may be played by one or more members of assembly, is

difficult to accomplish as the eyewitnesses may not be willing to depose and the

circumstantial evidence will not be strong enough to implicate the guilty.

In this context, the Commission feels that the analogy sought to be drawn from the

provisions of the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 is not appropriate for

15

more than one reason. ‘Sati’ is a barbaric, deeply entrenched social evil which was

prevalent in certain parts of the country. The magnitude and seriousness of that evil

cannot be compared to the problem on hand. More important, the offence of ‘Sati’

always remained an open affair with all the rituals and ceremonies attached to it and

the persons actively participating therein could be identified without difficulty. The

accusations in such cases are based on solid evidence.

The Law Commission beautifully emphasized on the perceived issue, e. i. honour

killing and showed its great concern on this problem but it looks me that the

Commission is not serious about this big problem. The Commission is not ready to

segregate the murder which is committed in the name of honour from other murders.

For it the Commission gives the argument that the motive behind killing a person does

not furnish real justification to introduce a separate provision in section 300.

Probably, the addition of such clause may create confusion and interpretational

difficulties. We cannot deny making special provisions for a special problem only

saying that it would create confusion and interpretational difficulties. We have to face

interpretational difficulties to make India free from honour killing. Special laws are

passed to deal all those problems which are not covered under the existing law. I think

that there is no harm to amend section 300 of IPC.

The Prohibition of Unlawful Assembly (Interference with the Freedom of

Matrimonial Alliance) Bill, 2011

There has been a spurt in illegal intimidation by self-appointed bodies for bringing

pressure against Sagotra marriages and inter-caste, inter-community and inter-

religious marriages between two consenting adults in the name of vindicating the

honour of family, caste or community. In a number of cases, such bodies have

resorted to incitement of violence and such newly married or couples desirous of

getting married have been subjected to intimidation and violence which has also

resulted into their being hounded out of their homes and sometimes even murdered.

Although such intimidation or acts of violence constitute offences under the Indian

Penal Code, yet, it is necessary to prevent assemblies which take place to condemn

such alliances. This Bill is therefore, proposed to nip the evil in the bud and to prevent

spreading of hatred or incitement to violence through such gatherings. The Bill is

16

designed to constitute special offences against such assemblies, in addition to other

offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion

This is a proposed Bill to nip the evil of honour killing in the bud. I think that it is

such kind of Bill which will be proved waste and will not be able to provide us what

we intend. An unlawful assembly, mentioned in Section 2 of the Bill, and every

person convening or organizing such assembly and every member thereof

participating therein shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than

six months but which may be extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine up to

ten thousand rupees.38 I’ll not appreciate such kind of provision because who are

gathering to kill someone, are just liable an imprisonment of one year. When we

compare this provision with Section 143 and 144 of IPC, we can see that it is not

better than the provision of IPC. If we are going to pass any special law it must seem

special and must be too strict to recruit the problem. If the law is equal to other

existing laws, there is no need of passing a law just to show the public that the

Government is concerned about the problem. Other provisions are also very week and

not praiseworthy.

The problem of honour killing is prevailing in all over India and harassing all the

young boys and girls who are willing to marry against the will of the family so we all

collectively try to eradicate the problem. For it the law must be so strict that the

people who are willing to commit honour killing must severe with fear.

38 See, The Prohibition of Unlawful Assembly (Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances) Bill, 2011.

17