“Honour Killings” should be tried by special/fast track courts: SC
Our Correspondent / New Delhi
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court today ruled said any interference by the extra-constitutional Khap panchayats to scuttle marriage between two consenting adults is illegal and can’t be allowed such practice.
It also said that all cases of “honour killings” should be tried by special/fast track courts.
Saying that any act in the name of honour that “tantamounts to atrophy of choice of an individual relating to love and marriage”, the bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said it is “illegal and cannot be allowed a moment of existence”.
Holding that fundamental rights are inherent in a person, the court in its judgment said that “the intolerant groups who subscribe to the view of superiority class complex or higher clan cannot scuttle the right of a person by leaning on any kind of philosophy, moral or social, or self-proclaimed elevation”.
Speaking for the bench, Chief Justice Misra declared: “It has to be constantly borne in mind that rule of law as a concept is meant to have order in a society. It respects human rights. Therefore, the Khap Panchayat or any Panchayat of any nomenclature cannot create a dent in exercise of the said right.
“When the ability to choose is crushed in the name of class honour and the person’s physical frame is treated with absolute indignity, a chilling effect dominates over the brains and bones of the society at large.”
“The fundamental feature of dignified existence is to assert for dignity that has the spark of divinity and the realization of choice within the parameters of law without any kind of subjugation,” the judgment said.
Holding that the “honour” killings “guillotines individual liberty, freedom of choice and one’s own perception of choice”, the court said: “It has to be sublimely borne in mind that when two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is a manifestation of their choice which is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.”
The court also directed that all the cases involving honour killings or violence “shall be tried by the designated Court/Fast Track Court earmarked for that purpose” and the trial would proceed on day to day basis and be concluded “preferably within six months from the date of taking cognizance of the offence”.
While reserving its verdict in March this year, the court had observed that when two consenting adults get married irrespective of their background, no relative or a third person can interfere or threaten or unleash violence against them.
During the proceedings in the matter, the Centre too had told the top court that state governments must provide protection to couples fearing for their lives due to inter-caste or inter-faith marriages and that such couples should inform the marriage officers about any such threat so that they can be given protection.
In an indication that it will not recognise ‘khap panchayats’, the top court had also said that it would refer to them only as an assembly of persons or as a community group.
The apex court had earlier said incidents of attacks against those going for inter-caste or inter-faith marriages were “absolutely illegal” and no ‘khap panchayat, individual or the society could question any adult woman or man marrying to a person of his or her choice.
‘Khap’ panchayats are caste or community groups, present largely in rural areas of north India which at times act as quasi-judicial bodies and pronounce harsh punishments based on age-old customs. Several cases of women and men falling victim to ‘khap’ diktats have been reported over the years, particularly in states like Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.
The apex court had also asked khap panchayats not to behave like “conscience keepers of the society” and said that a marriage between two adults was governed by the law.
‘Khap panchayats’ had earlier told the court that they were encouraging inter-caste and inter-faith marriages and had referred to provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act which prohibit a union between ‘sapinda’ relationships or close blood relatives among Hindus.
They had claimed that they were performing their duties as conscience keepers of the society.
The court had invited ‘khap panchayats’ to hear their views before issuing an order to stop them from harassing or killing couples purportedly to protect the honour of a family, caste, community or faith.
The Centre had earlier pleaded with the apex court to put in place a mechanism to monitor crimes against women by khap panchayats, saying that the police was not able to protect such women.
The top court had also said that as a pilot project, it would examine the situation in three districts of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh where khap panchayats were active.
In 2007, a Haryana court had awarded death to five people and sentenced one person to life for killing a couple on the orders of a self-styled ‘khap panchayat’ for marrying against societal norms.
In April 2015, the khap of Notara Bhopat village had ordered a woman from Rajasthan to live with a man whose wife had eloped with her husband.
In 2014, a community panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had banned girls from wearing jeans and keeping mobile phones, claiming that these had a “bad” effect on them and were responsible for sexual harassment incidents.