IRAC ANALYSIS

SHAKTI VAHINI V.S. UOI and Ors.

INTRODUCTION

Honour-related violence is a global phenomenon, with reported cases in Iran, Brazil,

Ecuador, Morocco, Italy, Yemen, India and many other countries. It is widely held that
family or group dishonour is at the root of such violent crimes. Women are disproportionately
targeted in such violent crimes. Men are also attacked by members of a woman's family who
believe they have a "inappropriate relationship" with her. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

Due to the tremendous rise in the cases of Honor Killing in our society,in this case, the
complainant(petitioner), “Shakti Vahini,”, an organisation was given permission to conduct a
research study on honour killings in Haryana, Punjab, and Western Uttar Pradesh.
This petition was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, requesting that the
respondents—the State and the Central governments—take preventive measures to combat
honour crimes, submit a national and state plan of action to combat such crimes, and further
direct the state government to create special cells in each district that can be approached by
the couples living in that area.
 
 
ISSUE
1. Whether an individual has a right to choose a life partner of his/her choice?
2. If honour killings done by khap panchayats are legal?
 

CONTENTIONS ON  BEHALF OF  THE PETITIONER

 

     It was argued that by disregarding constitutional requirements, Khap Panchayats

cultivated an inviolable power to punish anyone who tries to stigmatise their society.
 This group treats basic human rights as meaningless because the police and
administration have not taken notice of the issue. These Khap panchayats consider
themselves as ‘community guardians’ and assert vigilant procedures like punishing
people for the crimes and direct for social boycott or killing by a mob.

      In North Western India, where families and community mobs adhere to honour
killing without the slightest pangs of conscience, Article 21, which protects life and
liberty, has been unceremoniously disregarded and abolished.
 

       Despite the formation of various Action Plans and guidelines by various states, its
implementation hasn’t had much success for which , the petitioners contended to have
stricter actions and regulation.

 
 
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
 

        In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, since the police and public order
are considered state subjects under the Constitution, dealing with honour killings is
mainly the duty of the states.
 
      To counter this problem, the Central Government is engaging with various States
and Union Territories to consider a plan to amend the IPC or enact a separate law and
the 242nd Law Commission Report proposed a bill called "The Prohibition of
Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances Bill."

      All the states were also given strict directions  to take pre-emptive, protective and
corrective measures whenever any  individual case comes into highlight.e
RULE
 
Article 19 (Constitution Of India)1 –  Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of
speech etc

Article 21 (Constitution Of India)2 –  Life and personal liberty are safeguarded. No one's
life or personal liberty can be taken away from them unless they follow the legal procedure.

Article 32 (Constitution Of India)3 – Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this

Part-
 The right to bring an effective action in the Supreme Court to enforce the rights
conferred by this Part is assured.

Section 300 [Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)]4 - Murder.—Except in the cases set forth
below, culpable homicide is murder if the act that results in the death is performed with the
intent to inflict death.

Section 302 [Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)]5 - Murder is punishable by death or [life
imprisonment], as well as a monetary penalty.

 
RATIO
In order to curb the practice of honour killings, the court came up with 3  remedial measures
as mentioned:-

1. Preventive Steps
2. Remedial Measures
3.  Punitive Measures

ANALYSIS

1
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 19
2
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 21
3
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 132
4
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 300
5
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302
 
When two people marry of their own free will, choosing their own course and
consummating their relationship, they have the right to do so, and any breach of that
right is a constitutional violation.

The declaration of choice, according to the court, is an inseparable aspect of liberty and
dignity. Individual choice is closely tied to dignity, since dignity is eroded by choice. The
definition of liberty must be measured and checked against the backdrop of constitutional
sensitivity, security, and values. If a person's liberty cannot be maintained, subject to legally
legitimate legal requirements, his or her life becomes akin to that of the living dead, subjected
to violence and torture without resistance and to the imposition of thoughts and opinions
without a voice to express opposition or record a dispute. If one's right to make one's own
decisions is limited, integrity cannot be considered in its sanctified fullness. 

In a counter affidavit that had been filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the respondents, it
was decided that "honour killings" should be considered as murder and prosecuted under
Indian Penal Code sections 300 and 302. Since the police and the general public are
subjects of the state under the constitution, it is the states' primary duty to deal with honour
killings. The central government has proposed to state governments and union territories
either amending the Indian Penal Code or enacting a separate law to address the crimes and
issues around honour killing.

Former Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra quoted key passages from the Law Commission's
242nd Report, which concludes the scenario of "honour killings" or "honour crimes." The
commission's draught bill uses the word "Khap Panchayat," which refers to someone or any
party who gathers, assembles, or congregates with the intent of condemning any marriage.
While referring to the 242nd report the court suggested that there is no need to add a clause or
amend Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to include so-called "honour killings" in
the scope of this provision. According to this report, the current provisions in the IPC, 1860
are adequate to deal with circumstances that lead to Honour killing and other crimes linked to
this crime in the community. Instead of amending the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the
commission proposed a new law called the “Prohibition of Interference with Freedom of
Matrimonial Alliances Bill 2011” to address the problem. Several notable cases had also
been highlighted, including Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Others6, in which a writ of
mandamus was granted to provide defence to the plaintiff and her husband, who were
constantly threatened with "Honour Killing."

The court also held that these communities, also known as Panchayat or caste elders, have
no right to interfere with the lives and liberty of young couples whose marriages are legal,
and they cannot establish a dangerous and hostile environment in the village/locality. The
very gathering is for an illegal reason, namely, objecting to a marriage that is otherwise legal
and within the boundaries of the law, and their actions should be considered as a crime
because they threaten the lives and liberty of those involved. Such gatherings have no
respect for the lives and liberty of others, and their actions shall be properly addressed by
penal law, without prejudice to the prosecutions that may be brought under the general penal
law for crimes such as abetment and conspiracy. 

Since an attack on human dignity cannot be tolerated, the court advised the legislature to pass
legislation expressly prohibiting honour killing. The court issued preventive, remedial, and
punitive measures based on the principles of some cases and suggestions filed by senior
counsel and the Union of India, including sensitising law enforcement agencies, recording
more Khap Panchayat discussions, ensuring effective investigation and departmental actions
against negligence, and providing security to the couple in any instance of inter-caste
marriage.

The court finally held the following:

1. According to the Centre, state governments should be responsible for the lives of
couples who are afraid of retaliation. They should be kept in special protection homes
out of harm's way.

6
Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 475
 2. According to the government, special cells should be established in each district to
handle complaints from couples in danger of losing their lives.

3. Due to the proposed Bill's pending status, the Centre believes the Supreme Court
should issue categorical directions that "no individual or assembly of persons shall
assault, torture, subject to abuse, threaten, intimidate, or cause harm to any couple
wishing to get married by their own choice or couple who has already gotten
married."

CONCLUSION

Women are also considered inferior to men, despite the spread of education and laws
ensuring equal status for men and women. Wives, daughters, and sisters are also treated as
second-class citizens, even though they are servile or self-sacrificing. Choosing a life partner
is not a crime, and punishing anyone on the basis of caste, community, gotra, or some other
criterion is absolutely unfair. In this case, the court correctly rejected the whole scenario of
"Honour Killings," which violates the Fundamental Right enshrined in Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution and is of fundamental importance in our nation's laws. Following any
such process of punishing others under the guise of one's family name and pride is utterly
pitiful and unacceptable.

In Salamat Ansari and others versus State of UP and others7, the Honourable Allahabad
High Court recently dismissed a case against a Muslim man brought by the parents of his
wife, who converted to Islam and became a Muslim before marrying him, stating that the
court does not consider them to be a Hindu-Muslim couple.

While doing so, a bench consisting of Honourable Justice Pankaj Naqvi and Justice Vivek
Agarwal reaffirmed that a person's freedom to live with a person of one's choosing, regardless
of religion, is fundamental to the right to life and personal liberty. The decision comes amid a
dispute about "marriage jihad."

7
Crl. Misc. WP No. 11367 of 2020
This decision is important since it upholds a number of constitutional values of liberty and
democracy. The right to select a partner is enshrined in Article 21's right to life and personal
liberty, and the Special Marriage Act8 has provisions for it.

Autonomy is individualistic, and society should recognise this. The only way to prosecute
anyone is by legal processes, and in the eyes of the law, performing a marriage is not a crime,
even though the two people are from different castes, communities, or religions. The court's
orders to end the practise of "Honour Killing" are an important step toward eliminating or
reducing the morbid phenomenon of such events.

It is necessary for society to look deep into itself and seek to eradicate the evil of honour
crime from our collective consciousness. Civil society organisations, government leaders,
non-governmental organisations, and others are all trying to strengthen the situation of
honour crimes. For honour crimes to be eradicated in India, a cultural shift is needed. In
certain parts of India, conservatism still reigns. To make a difference in this arena, a
fundamental change in how men and women behave is needed.

8
The Special Marriage Act, 1954, Acts of Parliament, No. 43, 1954(India)