Shakti Vahini v. Union of India

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India took a strong stance against honour killings, a deeply ingrained social evil in certain parts of the country. The case of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) addressed the rights of individuals to choose their life partners without fear of retribution from their families or communities. 

The Court not only reaffirmed the right to choose one’s life partner as a fundamental right but also issued a comprehensive framework to tackle the issue of honour killings, including preventive, remedial, and punitive measures. The judgement emphasised the importance of state intervention and coordination in safeguarding these rights and ensuring that such crimes are prevented, investigated, and punished effectively.

Factual Background of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India

In this case, the petitioner, Shakti Vahini, an organisation authorised by the National Commission for Women (NCW), approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India (right to constitutional remedies). The petitioner sought judicial intervention to prevent honour killings, particularly in the states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Punjab, where the practice was widespread.

The petitioner’s research revealed that a growing number of individuals were refraining from marrying their chosen partners due to the fear of honour killings. Statistics from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) showed the alarming rise in honour killings across India. Between 2014 and 2016, 288 cases were reported, with a peak in 2015 at 251 cases.

Shakti Vahini sought various measures, including the establishment of special cells for the protection of couples at risk, preventive steps to curb honour killings, and an action plan to reduce such crimes. The organisation also requested the issuance of directives to the state and central governments for the swift prosecution of such crimes.

Legal Issues

The case raised several critical legal questions, including:

1. Is the right to choose one’s life partner a fundamental right under the Constitution of India?
2. Do institutions like Khap Panchayats have any legal validity in India?
3. Is the current legal system equipped to effectively curb the practice of honour killings and the influence of social bodies like Khap Panchayats?

Petitioner’s Contentions

Shakti Vahini argued that the prevalence of honour killings was disproportionately high in certain northern states. The petitioner contended that the Khap Panchayats were self‑appointed, quasi‑judicial bodies, consisting predominantly of male members from a particular caste or community. 

These bodies had no legal standing but operated as parallel law enforcement agencies, imposing punishments such as social boycotts or even murder for marrying outside the prescribed norms.

The petitioner also pointed out that the fear of such punishments had led many couples to refrain from marrying or choosing partners. The petition sought judicial intervention to stop these unlawful practices and requested that the state governments be directed to establish special cells for the protection of couples at risk from such violence.

Respondent’s Contentions

The Union of India and the respective state governments presented their submissions, countering the petitioner’s claims and outlining the measures already in place to prevent honour killings.

1. Union of India: The Union Government argued that honour killings were already recognised as murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were punishable under Section 302 (murder). The government pointed out that the issue fell primarily under the jurisdiction of state governments, as public order and law enforcement were state subjects under the Constitution. The Union further referred to the 242nd Law Commission Report, which recommended specific legislation to address honour killings, including a Prohibition of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances Bill.
   
2. State Governments: Various states, including Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan, submitted their responses. Some states, like Punjab and Haryana, had already issued guidelines to protect newly married couples from honour killings, while others, like Uttar Pradesh, stated that no cases had been reported during the specified period. However, the states also acknowledged the need for more stringent measures and expressed their willingness to comply with the Court’s directions.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgement in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case was monumental in reaffirming the right to choose a life partner as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The Court observed that:

The Right to Choose One’s Life Partner

The Court held that the right to marry is an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It stated that individuals have the right to marry without needing approval from their family, community, or clan. The judgement declared that a person’s autonomy to choose a spouse is inviolable and must be protected from societal interference.

Khap Panchayats

The Court unequivocally held that the actions of Khap Panchayats, particularly their involvement in sanctioning honour killings, were unconstitutional. The Court ruled that these bodies had no legal status or jurisdiction to impose decisions that contravened the law, especially when they violated individuals’ fundamental rights.

State Responsibility 

The Court emphasised the role of the state in preventing honour killings. It directed state governments to identify regions where Khap Panchayats and honour killings were prevalent and to take proactive steps to curb these practices. Law enforcement agencies were ordered to be vigilant and to take swift action in cases of threats to couples’ lives and liberty.

Court’s Directions in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India

The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions to the state governments to ensure the protection of individuals’ rights and to prevent honour killings. These included:

Preventive Measures

• Area Identification: States to list districts/sub‑divisions/villages with past honour‑killing or Khap activity (last 5 years).
• Police Advisories: Secretaries, Home Departments to issue directives to SPs to keep station‐in‐charges alert to inter‑caste/inter‑religious marriages.
• Immediate Reporting: Any proposed Khap meeting must be flagged to senior officers (DSP, Deputy SP, SP).
• DSP Intervention:
  • Personally warn Khap members that such meetings are unlawful
  • Videotape proceedings to gather evidence
• CrPC Preventive Action: Invoke Section 144 CrPC or similar measures if threats persist.

Remedial Measures

• FIR Registration: On any Khap diktat threatening couples—invoke IPC Sections 141 (unlawful assembly), 143 (assembling without lawful excuse), 503 (criminal intimidation) read with 506 (punishment for intimidation).
• Fast‑Track Investigation: Superintendent/DSP to oversee swift, effective probes; record and charge all participants, including conspiracy/aiding‑and‑abetting.
• Safe Houses:
  • Establish at district headquarters
  • Provide refuge (initially one month; renewable—up to one year) for threatened couples
• Verification & Reporting: An ASP‑rank officer to verify threat levels; report within one week.

Punitive Measures

• Departmental Action:
  • Against officers who negligently fail to prevent or investigate offences (per Arumugam Servai precedent).
  • Action to be completed within six months.
• Special Cells:
  • DSP, District Social Welfare Officer, District Adi‑Dravidar Welfare Officer to form 24‑hour hotlines.
  • Register complaints, offer legal aid and counselling.
• Fast‑Track Courts:
  • Dedicated courts to hear honour‑killing cases
  • Target conclusion within six months of filing

Conclusion

The Shakti Vahini v. Union of India case represents a pivotal moment in Indian law, where the Supreme Court reinforced the fundamental right of individuals to choose their life partners and live free from the threat of honour killings. By declaring Khap Panchayats unlawful and issuing clear directions for the state to act, the Court has paved the way for more robust measures to prevent such crimes.