CASE BRIEF: SHAKTI VAHINI v. UNION OF INDIA, (2018) 7 SCC 192

 

CASE NAME	Shakti Vahini v. Union Of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192
CITATION	AIR 2018 SC 1601, (2018) 70 OCR 784, (2018) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 588, (2018) 2 CRILR(RAJ) 541, 2018 (3) SCC (CRI) 1
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Dipak Misra
PETITIONERS	Shakti Vahini
RESPONDENT	Union Of India and Others
DECIDED ON	decided on 27th March, 2018

INTRODUCTION

The basis for this lawsuit is honor killing. When the word "killing" is added to the word "honor," it no longer seems to have the same reverence. Respect Killing is a cultural crime or tradition that is widespread in human communities where women are viewed as the guardians of the honor of the entire family. Courts were also employed to uphold the tenuous so-called "honor" of the family in whose name, regardless of the circumstances or nature of the murders. The horrible atrocities were perpetrated, and the offenders were typically apprehended. According to the most recent publicly available data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), there were 28 cases reported with a motive of honor killing in 2014, 251 cases in 2015, and 77 cases in 2016. These cases included cases registered under section 302 IPC for murder and section 304 IPC for culpable homicide that does not amount to murder in the nation. Crimes committed within or under the influence of culture are referred to as cultural crimes. One such cultural crime that is highly common in our nation is honor killing. "The acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family," is how Human Rights Watch describes honor killings. Thus, the family members murder the victim in an effort to turn them into a pariah. When a man or woman is slain for marrying the person they desire, it is known as honor killing. When it comes to the family's honor, the most powerful member of the family worries about the status and reputation of the group but neglects to love and care for the other members. The research paper discusses honor killings in India and the legal framework around them. These incidents are brought on by certain social issues.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The current Writ Petition was filed in accordance with Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, requesting that the respondents—the State and Central Governments—take proactive measures to prevent honor crimes and submit a National and State Plan of Action to reduce crimes of that kind, and further order the State Governments to establish special cells in each district that the couples can contact for their safety and well-being. A writ of mandamus has been requested to be issued to the State Governments, instructing them to initiate prosecutions in every instance of honor killing and to take necessary action to prevent future honor crimes and the instillation of evil in the minds of specific members of the public. The petitioner, Shakti Vahini, conducted the survey in Western Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and Haryana. Upon the completion of the research study, the petitioners discovered that a climate of fear has emerged among young people who plan to marry in various regions of the country due to the increased prevalence of crimes and killings. Human and fundamental rights are being violated either to uphold the customs of the society in question or to uphold the honor of the class and society. 

ISSUES RAISED

1. Does the freedom to pick one's life partner fall under the protection of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty? If it does, wouldn't that violate people's human rights? 
2. Is the Indian government doing everything required to protect the freedom to select one's life partner? 
3. Is the ruling on honor killing made by Khap Panchayats, who the government does not recognize, legal in the country, and does it follow the law? 
4. Are the laws of today in India sufficient to monitor and regulate the traditional activities carried out by a non-official organization such as the Khap panchayat? 
5. Is it legal for a married couple's or individual's family to engage in honor killing?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument on behalf of the petitioner

• According to the petitioner, states like Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh have higher rates of honor killings than the states in the south. It has been noted that over the past three years, there have been over 300 cases of honor crimes in these states. 
• The oppressive practices of certain core organizations, who saw themselves as the lawmakers, along with social pressure and inhumane treatment, instill terror in the hearts of their victims and force them to either commit suicide or endure suffering at the hands of these groups. 
• These organizations, which go by the name "Panchayat," have the authority to impose punishment for crimes, order a social boycott, or order the murder of an individual by a mob.
• The petition argues that senior males from a caste or lineage make up the parallel law enforcement body and meet regularly to discuss matters that affect the group. 
• Both the federal government and the state governments must submit a national action plan and a state action plan to control comparable crimes, as well as take preventive measures or efforts to counter, control, or minimize such crimes based on honor.

Argument on behalf of the respondent

• According to a fresh affidavit submitted by the Union of India on September 9, 2013, the 242nd report of the Law Commission of India recommended introducing a measure titled "The Prohibition of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances Bill" to address the issue of "honor killing." The Union of India also states that because the 242nd report of the Law Commission of India comes within the concurrent list of the Indian Constitution, consultation with the governments of the States and Union Territories is required before a policy decision about the aforementioned topic can be made.
• The State of Punjab has declared in an affidavit that it will not stand by silently in the face of any form of honor killing. For the same reason, the State of Punjab has issued a Memorandum No. 5/151/10-5H4/2732-80 to the Department of Home Affairs and Justice, outlining and enforcing revised guidelines and policies aimed at allaying any doubt, uncertainty, and/or threat that may be present among the general public. 
• The State of Haryana has challenged the accusations made against it in an affidavit that it has filed. Additionally, it was mentioned that the spouses had received sufficient protection thanks to the directives from the District and High Courts, as well as in certain cases when the police became aware of the circumstances firsthand. Furthermore, it is argued that formal complaints have been filed against the defendants and that the legal process is being followed.
• In its response, the State of Jharkhand said that actions had been taken against those responsible for these types of crimes. It was stated that honor killing is uncommon in the state of Jharkhand and that the government will take the necessary action to prevent crimes of this nature.
• A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the NCT of Delhi. The affidavit claims that the Delhi Police Department does not maintain separate files for incidents of "honor killing." On the other hand, it is said that at the time the affidavit was submitted, eleven occurrences had been recorded. 
• In reaction, the State of Rajasthan severely condemned the illicit operations being carried out in the name of khap panchayats. The State of Rajasthan argues that it has sent police officers circulars asking them to monitor panchayat activities and that it is prepared to abide by any orders this Court issues in order to lessen and eventually eradicate the evil that is honor killing in our society.
• The affidavits have been further filed by all the other alleged states, stating that they are trying to come up with a policy to reduce the honor killing.

JUDGMENT

The ability to select a life partner is a basic right, as established by the Supreme Court; a person's family, community, or clan does not have to approve of a marriage between two persons. The Supreme Court decided that when two adults mutually decide to become life partners, it is an expression of their choice that is protected by Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has further provided guidelines for both states and Courts to follow.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court has defined a "khap panchayat" as any individual or group of individuals who have met, assembled, or congregated at any time with the purpose of denouncing any marriage, including a proposed marriage, that is not illegal on the grounds that it has violated caste or community customs or brought disgrace to any or all of the assembly members, their families, or other local residents. The Law Commission of India's 242nd report, "Prevention of interference with the freedom of matrimonial alliances (in the name of honor and tradition): A suggested legal framework," was cited by the court in its decision. According to the report, the terms "honor killings" and "honor crimes" are used so casually and conveniently to describe horrible acts of violence against young couples who truly or genuinely want to get married against the wishes of their family, community, or clan. According to reports, some couples face consequences for being married, including threats to their lives and limbs and even murder.  The court determined that women are the main targets of these honor killings because they are more likely to marry for love or to have a premarital relationship, which is regarded as adulterous and likely to damage the reputation of the family or community. Concerning the validity of the khap panchayats, it should be noted that they are neither defined in the constitution nor elected as a component of the gram panchayat system that is referenced in it. They function as "de facto" courts and are not recognized by law. The court further stated that these types of gatherings, assemblies, and proclamations endorsing and directing honor killings in the name of long-standing customs are denounced by both domestic and foreign organizations and are seen as grave violations of human rights. As a result, such assemblies should face legal consequences.