Will the SC’s landmark Khap Panchayat judgment help protect young lovers in rural India?

By Vritika Mathur

“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 question that poignantly emanates for consideration is whether the elders of the family or clan can ever be allowed to proclaim a verdict guided by some notion of passion and eliminate the life of the young who have exercised their choice to get married against the wishes of their elders or contrary to the customary practice of the clan.”

                                                                 – Dipak Misra, the 45th Chief Justice of India.

A landmark judgment was recently delivered by the Supreme Court, which prohibits self-appointed Khap Panchayats from restricting marriage between two consulting adults on the basis of caste or any other such ascriptive grounds.

What are Khap Panchayats?

Khap Panchayats are informal administrative caste or community groups that function within villages. They exert a significant amount of influence, despite the fact that they are not a formally elected body. There lies an almost unquestionable faith in the judgments given by the Panchayat. Most verdicts are conservative, harsh, and revolve around the deviation from any local social norm. The decisions of the Panchayat reflect a stubborn bias against women, and lack any consideration of women’s rights.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NRCB), there were around 288 honour killings between the years 2014 and 2016. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The judgment delivered

A bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, announced that any attempt to hamper a marriage between two consenting adults would be considered illegal. This decision extends to any assembly with the intentions of carrying out the same. The Supreme Court also laid down norms to prevent interference. These guidelines will hold ground until proper legislation is introduced and enacted by the Parliament. The court has also decided to set up a high-level committee, consisting of senior police officers to help get the situation in control.

The verdict came in response to a PIL filed by the NGO Shakti Vahini in 2010, asking for protection for couples from honour killings facilitated by such panchayats. The bench believes that no individual, group or collective rights have any say in that matter, and cannot interfere or harass two individuals agreeing to enter into matrimony. It said, “We are on a very fundamental issue. The marriage is between two adults and it is their choice. You cannot take the law into your own hands. Khaps had no business in such matters.”

Problems being addressed

One of the biggest issues with Khap Panchayats is the fact that they take matters into their own hands, encouraging or facilitating so-called honour killings. They believe themselves to be “self appointed conscience keepers” and resort to violence against couples in the face of any disobedience.

Their constant tirade against inter-faith or inter-caste relationships reflects the orthodox mindset that continues to rule societies. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NRCB), there were around 288 honour killings between the years 2014 and 2016. The bench said that the human rights of any individual “are not mortgaged to the so-called or so-understood honour of the family or clan or the collective.” It believes that the act of honour killing puts the rule of law “in a catastrophic crisis.”

The recent murder of 23-year-old Ankit Saxena indicates how deeply problematic the issue is. He was a photographer who fell in love with a Muslim girl, and was killed over the relationship. This only goes to showcase how dishonour from an inter-religious relationship holds higher shame, in comparison to any penal consequence of brutality. Eradicating the idea of such age-old taboos is essential for a civil society.

The trend of honour killings in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Punjab has increased, instilling a deep fear within the youth. Social pressure is asserted by individuals who put themselves in the position of lawmakers, and consequently impose harsh punishments or drive the concerned into suicide. Violation of human rights and fundamental rights takes place in the name of class, caste and religion freely with no remorse.

Limitations of the judgment

While the judgment is now a diktat—an order that must be obeyed—there is little scope of that bringing much change in societal attitudes. Even with proper legislation being sought, there arise two problems. First is the uncertainty of success that comes with the creation of any law. There appears to be no remorse after committing these crimes, despite there being legal consequences. So, while stringent laws may help reduce the trend, one cannot be sure of its proper success. Second, delay in passing of proper laws continues to be an age-old factor in most of the problems that continue to persist society.

Therefore, urgent steps need to be taken to ensure the safety and security of couples, and to guarantee them police protection. Furthermore, political parties and official groups should take organised or personalised action to help combat the real issue of religion or caste divide. No law will be able to tackle the problem of pride that is eminent in most parts of our society. Change in social attitude will only come through attempting to highlight problematic beliefs.