HONOUR KILLING: A BAR ON FREEDOM OF CHOICE

A Century which is known for guaranteed rights to ever individual has a major Knavery still
existing in it, known as Honour killing. “Honour killing is the unlawful killing of a woman for
her actual or anticipated morally or mentally unclean and nasty behavior”1. Honour killings are
murders by families on family members who are said to have brought blot on the honour and
name of family. These are activities in which “a male member of the family slays a female
relative for vitiating the family image”. The term is also defined as the purposeful pre-planned
murder, generally of a woman, by or at the command of members of her family impassioned by a
perception that she has brought shame on the family.
There are bounteous of provision in The Constitution of India which guarantees an individual to
exercise his/her choice independent of caste, religion or gender and salvation from honour
related crimes including honour killings. Honour Killings are cases of homicide and murder
under IPC. This grave crime of Honour killing pecks to homicide and murder because the acts
are done with the intention of murdering the victims. The khap panchayats or family members
who are the major slayer can also be booked under Section 302 of IPC. Such slayings also
violates Articles 14, 15 (1) & (3), 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. So honour
killing is against the basic constitutional rights.
A special law Special Marriage Act, 1954 was enacted which has a peculiar purpose of
providing a special form of marriage for the people of India and all Indians populating in foreign
countries, irrespective of the religion or faith ensued by either party, to perform the intended
marriage. The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006 makes the provision for
salvation of individual rights of human beings and the constitution of a National Human Rights
Commission, State Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Courts for strong protection
of human rights of individuals.

1
Shakti Vahini v Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192
 The case that can be considered with respect to the issue of honor killing can be the Kaithal
Murder Case2 of ‘Manoj’ and ‘Babli’ the decision of which was declared on March 29th 2010.
The landmark adjudication was given by the Additional district and Session judge Vani Gopal
Sharma. Five of Babli's family members, her brother Suresh, uncles Rajender & Baru Ram &
cousins Satish & Gurdev -- were ordered to hang until death for slaying the couple on June 15,
2007. The judge sentenced the 7th accused, Mandeep Singh, driver of the Scorpio used in the
crime, to seven years' jail for kidnapping and conspiracy.

In addition, the leader of Banawala khap, Ganga Raj, was awarded life sentence for devising a
conspiracy to kill a couple just because they had married against the wishes of elders who had
termed them "brother and sister."
“The trend of honour killing is on the aggrandize and such killings have created a sense of fear
amongst young people who intend to get married but are not able to infiltrate into wedlock out of
fear. The social pressure and the sequential inhuman treatment by the core groups who
expropriate to themselves the position of lawmakers and impose punishments which are
extremely cruel inject immense fear that impel the victims to commit suicide or to suffer
irreparably at the hands of these groups. The egoism in such groups getting support from similar
driven forces results in their becoming law into themselves. The violation of human rights and
slaughter of fundamental rights take place in the name of class honour or group right or perverse
individual perception of honour.” A judge quoted in Shakti Vahini v Union of India .

Court held in a famous case of Shakti Vahini v Union of India3 that the contention of choice is an
inseparable facet of Liberty and Dignity. The choice of an individual is a chunk of dignity. The
concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity,
protection and the ideals it stands for. If the right to express one’s own choice is curbed, dignity
cannot be thought of in its sanctified completeness. When two adults marry out of their own
volition, they choose their avenue, they consummate their relationship, they have the right to do
so and any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation. These groups or assemblies
who habitude in majority in the name of class or elevated honour of mob cannot claim power,
authority and final say to impose any punishment. The elders of the family or clan can never be
conceded to proclaim a verdict guided by some notion of passion and oust the life of the young
who have exercised their choice to get married against the wishes of their elders or discordant to
the customary practice of their clan.

Court while delivering this judgment relied on several cases which talks about the right of
woman. It first quoted Lata Singh v. State of U.P 4in which the court observed that there is no bar
for inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Court further held that
this is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry
whosoever he /she like.

2
Kaithal Murder Case
3
Shakti Vahini v Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192
4
Lata Singh vs. State Of U.P.  & Another ((2006) 5 SCC 475)
It also quoted cases like Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar5 and others, the Court acclaimed that the
choice of woman in choosing her partner in life is a legitimate constitutional right. It is founded
on individual choice that is recognized in the Constitution under Article 19, and such a right is
not expected to perish to the concept of ‘class honour’ or ‘group thinking’. 

It can be halted by saying that a larger societal change is imperious to curb such crimes in the
long run. This is only feasible through education and awareness. The Government will have to
actively draft and implement policies in order to uplift the socio-economic condition of women,
sensitization of the police and other parties concerned towards the need for gender equality

5
Asha Ranjan vs. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397