Paper-7 Module-15

Killing of Women in the name of Honour

(A) Personal Details

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Prof. Sumita Parmar Allahabad University,

Investigator Allahabad

Paper Coordinator Prof. Kiran Gupta & Faculty of Law

Dr. Vageshwari Deswal Delhi University

Faculty of Law, DU.

Content Dr. Vageshwari Deswal Faculty of Law, DU.

Writer/Author
(CW)

Content Reviewer Prof. Kiran Gupta Delhi University

(CR)

Language Editor Prof. Sumita Parmar Allahabad University

(LE)
(B) Description of Module

Subject Name Women’s Studies

Paper Name Women and Law

Module Name/ Title, Killing of Women in the name of

description Honour

Module ID Paper-7 Module-15

Pre-requisites For understanding the module, basic

understanding of Indian caste
system, religious differences,
patriarchy and criminal law is
required.
Objectives  To make the readers aware of the
horrific crime of honour killings.
 To spread awareness regarding
illegality of such acts.
 To impart knowledge of existing
legal provisions
Keywords Patriarchy, caste-system, sexuality,
honour, gender, tradition, culture
Killing of Women in the name of Honour

Learning outcomes:
 Sensitize the readers towards gender parity.
 Knowledge of important legislative provisions prohibiting
killings in the name of honour

Introduction

The term ‘honor killing’ literally means killing for honor. The usage of
the term ‘honor’ has a tendency to rationalize and legitimize the motive
of the crime by creating a false notion that the crime has been committed
to save the honor of the family. This implies that it is the responsibility
of the society to prevent any violation of its tradition. Amnesty
International defines the concept of honour killing as “The regime of
honour is unforgiving; women on whom suspicion has fallen are not
given an opportunity to defend themselves, and family members have no
socially acceptable alternative but to remove the stain on their ‘honour’
by attacking the woman.” In Lata Singh v. State of U.P.[(2006) 5 SCC
475] the Supreme Court stated that, “There is nothing honorable in
honor killings and they are wholly illegal”. Thus the usage of the term
‘honor’ along with killings is a misnomer and misleading. The term
Honor killing is an inaccurate description of this crime.

Killing of women in the name of honour

Honor killings are chiefly characterized by violence against women. The

ideology of honor stems from the patriarchal and gendered societal
norms which expect women to conform to their traditional roles and any
deviation from the same is censured. Woman in all her roles, whether as
a mother, daughter, sister or wife is always supposed to be subservient
to men. A woman’s honor is related to her conformity with the
traditional roles ascribed to her and any attempt to break from these is
considered a dishonorable act. Such a loss of honor is deemed
irreversible and is to be restored by punishing the rebel with death.
Conceptions of family honor endorse honor killings. Whenever a woman
indulges in acts perceived as dishonorable such as marrying against the
family wishes, marrying someone from the so called “lower caste”,
eloping with someone, becoming victim of a stigmatized offence such as
rape, molestations or sexual harassment, refusing an arranged marriage,
asking for divorce, having pre-marital or extra marital relationships,
adultery etc, she has to pay for it with her life. The community plays a
very important role in traditional honor killings. Ultimately it is the
community which decides what acts are honorable or dishonorable. The
killings are highly unlikely unless the transgression becomes known in
the community. It is shocking how caste and other prejudices continue to
dictate social life and individual choices even in these contemporary
times.
Every year thousands of women across the world are branded witches,
paraded naked, shot, burnt, poisoned, beheaded, stabbed, publically
shamed or tortured or subjected to death in some other way in the name
of honor. The debate over the issue of state responsibility for acts
committed in the private sphere continues without any effective results.
The argument that violence against women within the family is placed in
the domestic sphere and therefore out of the state’s control is still put
forth. Gender inequalities remain deeply entrenched in the societal
norms despite the State’s responsibility to uphold women’s rights and
protect them from any kind of discrimination.

Indian Patriarchal Society and Women

 Indian society is patriarchal and gender insensitive. Patriarchy in its
wider definition manifests itself in institutionalization of male
dominance over women in society. In our tradition bound society,
women have always been subjected to social, economic, physical,
psychological as well as sexual exploitation. In fact the institutions of
family and marriage, where she is considered to be safe, have become
the major cause of her oppression. The forms of oppression may vary
but the content is same. The dominant familial ideology in India has
shaped and constructed the family as private and beyond state
intervention thereby immunizing the oppression of women within this
domestic sphere. Any efforts to prohibit violent and oppressive practices
within the family have time and again been resisted as an undue
intervention into the ‘private’ sphere of the family. Thus for women the
Right to Life and Personal Liberty granted under Article 21 of our
constitution is contingent on their acting in conformity with the
prevailing social norms and traditions.

Main Reasons for Honor Killings in India

Religion and Caste system

Every religion and caste has its own peculiar notions and practices.
Different religions have different sets of personal laws which regulate
affairs of marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption, guardianship,
succession and inheritance. Generally people have a tendency to regard
and respect only their own customs and practices as correct and valid
In India the caste system is very rigid and despite our 65 years of
independence and several constitutional as well as legislative measures,
discrimination on caste basis continues. Caste remains one of the most
important factors governing the lives of people especially in rural areas
and inter-caste marriages are looked down upon with contempt and
disgust. Thus if any girl dares to go against the wishes of her family,
caste or religion by choosing a partner from a different caste or religion
or within the prohibited gotras, she is considered to have dishonoured
the family and the family’s esteem takes a beating in the society. The
family members fearing expulsion from the caste or social boycott are
forced to punish the girl in order to restore the family honour. As
repositories of community honour, women are subjected to brutal
killings as a punishment and as a deterrent for other girls.

Warped Notions of Traditions

Honor killings represent the most overt and brutal method of subjecting
women to male control and subordination. The genesis of this problem
can be traced back to incidences of voluntary killing of unmarried
daughters and wives during turbulent times such as war, partition etc to
save them from being violated. Since childhood, girls are subjected to
restrictions in matters of dressing, movement and behavior. All this is
done to inculcate in them a sense of subservience to the other gender and
submit to male dominance. It is a common experience that if the sister or
daughter commits something unusual and socially unacceptable such as
having a love affair or eloping with a boy of her choice, the society
holds the father or brother responsible for not reining in the girl and
allowing such a social wrong to occur. Such men caught in a social warp
feel the pressure of being the upholders or custodians of traditions and
the feeling is that the dishonour once brought upon the family cannot be
undone unless the source of dishonour is destroyed which means killing
of one’s own sister or daughter and sometimes the boy with whom she
was involved.
Property Issues
Another issue underlying these gruesome killings is property.
Nowadays people want their daughters to be educated and independent
yet submit to male dominance within the familial sphere. Educated
women have acquired more mobility in the society. This allows them to
meet and interact with more men with whom they sometimes strike a
friendship. When an educated and liberated female, driven by a new
found confidence and ambition chooses her partner in defiance of the
social norms, she is giving a subtle yet clear message that she has an
equal status in the society and has autonomy over her body and life. This
declaration of independence is perceived as a potential threat that she
may either herself, or with support from her partner, seek an equal share
in the family’s property which the law entitles her to but which she is
rarely accorded. Even after the 2005 amendments in the Hindu
succession Act, giving equal share to girls in the ancestral property,
women seldom stake a claim to their share. Traditionally, when marriage
takes place within an intimate circle, property rights are usually
foregone. The lurking threat that the woman may stake a claim to the
property assumes importance especially among poor, uneducated youth
who are dependent on land. This eventually leads to an overriding
sentiment that the evil is to nipped in the bud itself and this is manifested
in the killing of such women.
Role of Khap Panchayats
The term ‘Khap’ refers to a socio-political group. Khap panchayats are
informal institutions for conflict resolution engaged in dispensing social
justice based on customary practices and old traditions. Disputes were
resolved within the village or group of villages by the village elders
known as panches. The traditional role of such groups was to affect
compromises and settlements among people and to maintain the sanctity
and honour of the rural societies which they regulated. Those guilty of
illegal or immoral acts were reprimanded, asked to compensate the other
party or leave the village. Sometimes the guilty person or his family unit
would be isolated from the rest of the community. This served to settle
petty disputes over trivial issues which otherwise would snowball into
major controversies and both the parties would be subjected to
unnecessary wastage of time and money in the judicial process. In recent
times these Khaps have attracted criticism for overstepping their power
and jurisdiction and the media has reported that some Khaps have
reinforced caste based hierarchies by ordering illegal punishments for
those declared as culprits by these panchayats or their family members.
In the case of Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 6 SCC
405 on the honor killings being reported across India a Supreme Court
bench comprising of Jutice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha
Mishra statedthat, “In recent years `Khap Panchayats’ (known
as katta panchayats in Tamil Nadu) often decree or encourage honour
killings or other atrocities in an institutionalized way on boys and girls
of different castes and religion, who wish to get married or have been
married, or interfere with the personal lives of the
people. We are of the opinion that this is wholly illegal and
has to be ruthlessly stamped out. Atrocities in respect of personal
lives of people committed by brutal, feudal minded-persons deserve
harsh punishment. Only in this way can we stamp out such acts of
barbarism and feudal mentality. Moreover, these acts take the law into
their own hands, and amount to kangaroo courts, which are wholly
illegal”. The Court issued directions to
the administrative and police officials to take strong
measures to prevent such atrocious acts. The court said that in the
event of such an incident taking place, the State should immediately
institute criminal proceedings against those responsible for such
atrocities and also suspend the District Magistrate, Collector, Police
Superintendent and the Senior Superintendent of Police of the district as
well as other officials concerned and charge sheet them and proceed
against them departmentally if they are proven to have not taken
appropriate steps to prevent the incident if they had prior information
regarding the same or if they failed to apprehend the guilty persons
promptly and institute criminal proceedings against them. In such cases
the concerned officials would be presumed to be directly or indirectly
accountable in this connection. The court directed that copies
of this judgment shall be sent to all Chief Secretaries, Home
Secretaries and Director Generals of Police in all the States and Union
Territories of India, along with the direction that it should be circulated
to all officers up to the level of District
Magistrates and Superintendent of Police for strict compliance. A
Copy is also to be sent to the Registrar Generals/Registrars of all
High Courts who would be required to circulate the same among all the
Judges of the High courts.
Honour Killings and the Law
International Commitments
Honour Killings are nothing but culpable homicides and murders.
They go against the spirit of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Beijing
Platform for Action on Women’s Human Rights, 1995 calls upon States
to take urgent action to combat and eliminate violence against women,
which is a human rights violation resulting from harmful traditional or
customary practices, cultural prejudices and extremism. It reiterates that
human rights of women include their right to have control over and
decide freely and responsibly on matters relating to their sexuality,
including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion,
discrimination and violence (Para 232). The UN commitment towards
elimination of violence against women and honour killings in particular
are evident from the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against
Women (1993) and Working towards the Elimination of Crimes against
Women Committed in the Name of Honour (2003). Post the Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action and the Convention for Elimination
of Discrimination against Women, the United Nations has, as a part of
its reform agenda, created ‘UN Women’ in 2010. This is the UN entity
for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. This body is an
initiative to help member states and support the inter-governmental
bodies such as women’s commissions to fulfill the commitment on
gender equality.
India being a signatory to the “United Nations Convention on the
Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women” (CEDAW)
is bound to give effect to its provisions and take steps for eradication of
all discriminatory practices such as honour killings against women.

Constitutional Provisions
Such killings are violative of our constitutional provisions regarding
equality and protective provisions for women empowerment
enshrined under Articles 14, and 15 (1) & (3). They curtail a
woman’s freedom of movement (Art 19) and violate her right to life
and personal liberty (Art 21).

Honour Killings and the Existing Substantive Criminal Law

In August 2010, the National Commission for Women suggested a draft
legislation to amend Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with a
view to include Honour Killing as a gruesome offence. There have been
suggestions from several quarters to add another clause-Five to the
already existing four in Section 300. This clause would make khap-
dictated honour killings a distinct offence and make all those who
participate in the decision liable to be tried for the main charge, that is
murder, and liable for death which is the highest penalty awardable
under our law. However, this argument hasn’t found much favour with
our law makers who are of the view that the following existing
provisions under IPC, 1860 are sufficient to deal with this crime.
 Section 34 and 35: imposes joint liability for crimes committed by
several persons in furtherance of common intention.
 Sections 107-116: Penalizes persons for abetment of offences
including murder and culpable homicide.
 Section 120A and 120B: make criminal conspiracy a punishable
crime and all parties to such criminal conspiracy will be held
liable.
 Section 149 makes every member of unlawful assembly (as
defined under section 141) guilty of offence committed in
prosecution of the objective of such unlawful assembly.
 Sections 299, 304 and 308 make culpable homicide and attempt to
commit culpable homicide punishable with life imprisonment or
imprisonment for up to 10 years and fine.
 Sections 300, 302 and 307 make murder and attempt to commit
murder punishable with death, life sentence or imprisonment up to
ten years.
 Sections 503 and 506 makes criminal intimidation punishable with
imprisonment ranging from 2 to 7 years depending upon the level
of threat.
Quest for a Special Law
In response to a Public Interest Litigation filed by NGO Shakti Vahini,
the Supreme Court of India on 22nd June 2010 issued notice to the
Central Government and nine states in the face or rising honour killings
across the country. The Court wanted to know what steps, if any. were
being taken to curb such violence. This caused the then Prime Minister
Dr. Manmohan Singh, to constitute a Group of Ministers (GoM) to look
into the matter. In August 2010 this GoM met and discussed the
feasibility of amending the Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence
Act to tackle such killings. After much deliberation the issue was
referred to the Law Commission. In 2011 the Commission headed by
Justice P V Reddi submitted a draft bill with the objective of controlling
the growing spate of honour killings in our country. The Commissions
recommended that every individual has the freedom to marry and reside
with a partner of his or her own choice. The views of village elders or
family elders cannot be forced on the willing couple and no one has the
right to use force or impose far reaching sanctions in the name of
vindicating community honour or family honour. Many feminist groups
were demanding that rules of evidence need to be relaxed in cases of
honour killings and the burden of proving the innocence of accused must
lie on the defense. Rejecting the same, the Commission said that shifting
the onus on to the accused facing accusations of involvement in serious
offences such as murder or abetment of murder is ‘not desirable’. Such a
move would be against the cardinal principles of jurisprudence accepted
and absorbed into our criminal justice system. If burden of proof is
shifted in such a case, logically, it would have to be done in a large
number of other heinous crimes too. The consultation paper of the bill
makes it clear that, whatever may have been the view in ancient times,
‘sagotra marriages’ are not prohibited by the law. The Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 does not prohibit sagotra or inter-caste marriages. The bill
asserts that caste councils or khap panchayats cannot be allowed to adopt
moral vigilantism to enforce their diktats by assuming the role of social
or community guardians. Such groups take the law in their own hands
and this is a violation of the Rule of Law deserving of punishment under
the law.
‘The Prohibition of Unlawful Assembly (interference with the
freedom of matrimonial alliances) Bill’, 2011
The bill laid down that, ‘no person or group shall gather, assemble
or congregate with the intention to deliberate upon or condemn any
marriage not prohibited by law’. The term ‘Marriage’ also includes a
proposed or intended marriage. Such gatherings are to be treated as
unlawful punishable with imprisonment up to six months and fine of
Rupees ten thousand. The bill was drafted with the objective of
punishing every person who participates in an unlawful assembly to
socially boycott or inflict bodily harm on the boy or girl marrying or
wanting to marry and their families. Any participation in such an
assembly shall be considered as abetment or commission of a crime
punishable under the provisions of this bill as well as the Indian Penal
Code. Creating an environment of hostility, pressurizing the parties or
criminally intimidating them or their relatives or supporters would also
attract punishment which shall be a minimum imprisonment of one year.
The maximum punishment prescribed under this bill was imprisonment
up to a period of seven years and fine of rupees thirty thousand.
Unfortunately the above bill couldn’t see the light of the day and lapsed.
 The Prohibition of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial
Alliances in the Name of Honour and Tradition Act, 2015.
The Law Commission of India in its Report No. 242 has recommended
legal measures to nip the evil in the bud by preventing assemblies which
take place to condemn such alliances and to prescribe moré severe
punishment for violent acts of criminal intimidation or acts imperilling
the liberty of individual in the name of honour and tradition. Thus, the
Prohibition of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances
in the Name of Honour and Tradition Act, 2015. (Bill no.116 of 2015)
was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Feb 23, 2015 to provide for, in the
interests of protecting individual liberty and preventing victimization,
prohibition of unlawful assemblies and other conduct interfering with
the freedom of matrimonial alliances in the name of honour and tradition
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The salient
features of this act are as follows

 This law declares that every person shall have a right to marry or
stay with a person of his choice and any violation of this right by
any person or a group of persons shall be an offence under this
Act.
 Any assembly or congregation condemning any marriage, not
prohibited by law, on the basis that such marriage has dishonoured
the caste or community tradition or brought disrepute to all or any
of the person forming part of the assembly or the family or the
people of the locality concerned shall be treated as unlawful
 Any person or member of unlawful assembly who imposes any
social or economic sanction or social boycott on the couple or their
family or anyone associated with them, or tries to nullify any
marriage already solemnized or declares the couple to pay fine or
 treat each other as brother or sister shall be punishable under this
law.
 The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in
derogation of any other law for the time being in force.
 Where any person is prosecuted for an offence under this Act, the
burden of proving that he has not committed the offence shall be
on the person being prosecuted. While delivering the judgment in
the case of Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011)[ 6 SCC
396]the Supreme Court placed reliance on circumstantial
evidences to convict the accused.
 The DM or SDM to take pro-active steps and direct appropriate
authorities to prevent commission of offences under this law and
take steps to ensure protection and safety of persons concerned.
 All offences under this Act shall be cognizable, non- bailable and
non-compoundable.

The Judicial Response

A fair, transparent and impartial judicial system is the backbone of a
democratic country like India. The role of the judiciary is extremely
significant as it not only administers justice according to law but also
promotes social and economic justice through its judgments. More
importantly when new situations arise which are not covered by existing
laws then the judges are required to call for a judicial legislation. Article
141 of the Indian Constitution lays down that the laws declared by the
Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India
Taking cognizance of the rising incidences of honour killings, the
Supreme Court of India in the case of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, 2006 (5) SCC 475 termed such killings as acts of
barbarism. It ordered the police across the country to take stern action
against those resorting to violence against young men and women of
marriageable age who opted for inter-caste and inter-religions marriages.
In Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396, Justice
Markandey Katju has expressed disgust that “honor 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. In our opinion honor 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 behavior. All persons who are planning to
perpetrate `honor' killings should know that the gallows await them”.
Thus the Apex Court has made it very clear that such cases are to be
dealt with strictly and nothing but the extreme penalty should be
awarded to those who commit such barbaric and horrendous murders in
the name of honor.

On 3rd Oct, 2016 the Supreme Court, in the case of Vikas Yadav v. State
of U.P And Others. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1528-1530 of 2015)Justices
Dipak Misra and C Nagappan while delivering a 93 page judgment
pertinently observed, “One may feel ‘My honour is my life’ but that
does not mean sustaining one’s honour at the cost of another. Freedom,
independence, constitutional identity, individual choice and thought of a
woman be a wife or sister or daughter or mother cannot be allowed to be
curtailed definitely not by application of physical force or threat or
mental cruelty in the name of his self-assumed honour. That apart,
neither the family members nor the members of the collective has any
right to assault the boy chosen by the girl. Her individual choice is her
self-respect and creating dent in it is destroying her honour. And to
impose so called brotherly or fatherly honor or class honor by
eliminating her choice is a crime of extreme brutality, more so, when it
is done under a guise. It is a vice, a condemnable and deplorable
perception of “honour”, comparable to medieval obsessive assertions
(Para 67).”

References

List of cases

1. Lata Singh v. State of U.P.[(2006) 5 SCC 475]

2. Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P and Ors. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1528-
1530 of 2015)
3. Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396
4. State of UP v. Krishna Master, AIR 2010 SC 3071
5. Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 6 SCC 405
6. Sujit Kumar and Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors, AIR 2002 All 26