SHAKTI VAHINI V. UNION OF INDIA

 

SHAKTI VAHINI V. UNION OF INDIA

(2018) 7 SCC 192

 

 

CASE DETAILS:

 

Court – The honourable supreme court

Citation - WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 231 OF 2010

Honourable bench- Chief Justice Dipak Mishra, Justice A M Khanwilkar, Justice D Y

Chandrachud.

Date – 27th March, 2018

 

Petitioner: Shakti Vahini

 

The Respondents -

1. Union of India

2. Ministry of Home Affairs

3. Ministry of Women and Children

 

Introduction: 

 

In this case, the petitioner that is a corporation named “Shakti Vahini” was approved to conduct a hunt Study on Honour Killings in Haryana, Punjab, and Western U.P. in which they have bump into the very fact that these instances area unit rising by leaps and bounds within the society. The petition has been filed underneath Article thirty two (32) of the Constitution of Bharat, seeking directions of the court to the govt (both State and Central), Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of ladies & kid Development. The UOI expressed that so as to tackle this issue a bill named “The Prohibition of Interference with the liberty of marital status Alliances Bill” has been counseled by the Law Commission. Further, many state governments have filed affidavits and have given their responses towards the instrument petition.

 

Shakti Vahini v. Union of Bharat may be a case during which the court directed the state governments and the department of local government to form a strong mechanism which will facilitate the society to eliminate the crime of Honour Killing. Further, the court has arranged down sure preventive, punitive, and remedial measures for the states and therefore the police administration so as to create a powerful system. This case may be a obtrusive example that reflects the conclusion of dynamic and broad-minded over the stagnant and irrational ideas prevailing in society.

FACTS:

 

In this case, under Article 32[2] of the Indian Constitution was filed by an organization, Shakti Vahini.[3] The Petitioner wanted to seek direction from the respondents, the State Governments, and the Central Government to take steps and measures for the sake of dealing with honour killings of the couples and individuals whose liberty to choose whom to marry was crushed in the name of the class and society honour and the individual or couples’ physical frame has been treated with absolute indignity. The organization also wanted the respondents to submit a national plan of action on honour killings and a state plan of action on honour killings to stop these crimes that are committed in the name of the honour. Mr. Ravi Kant is the Founder Member & President of Shakti Vahini and also an Advocate in the Supreme Court of India.[4]The Organization, Shakti Vahini got an order passed by the national commission for women, on 22/12/2009 for conducting a research study on the topic, honour killing in Haryana and western parts of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner, Shakti Vahini organized the study in Haryana, Punjab, and Western Uttar Pradesh. After the completion of the research study, the petitioners found out that, the rate at which these crimes and killings are rising; an atmosphere of fear for the youth has been developed who intend to marry in these parts of the nation. Violation of fundamental rights and human rights are taking place in the name of honour of the society and class or either to preserve the culture of that society.

 

ISSUES INVOLVED:

 

1. Whether the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian constitution recognizes the right to choose one’s life partner and if denied wouldn’t it infringe the human rights of individuals?

2. Whether the Government of India is taking necessary measures and actions to safeguard the right to choose a life partner?

3. Whether the decision given on honour killing by Khap Panchayats which does not have any government recognition follows the law of the land and is it valid?

4. Whether the contemporary Indian laws are capable enough to check and control the conservative practices conducted by an informal institution like Khap panchayat?

5. Whether the family members of a married couple or individual are allowed to practice honour killing?

 

Contensions

Petitioner’s contention

A) The actions which are found to be linked with honour based crimes are:

i) Loss of virginity outside marriage ii) Premarital pregnancy iii) Infidelity iv) Having unapproved relationships v) Refusing an arranged marriage vi) Asking for divorce vii) Demanding custody of children after divorce viii) Leaving the marital home without permission ix) Causing scandal or gossip in the community x) Falling victim to rape

B) Murder in day light and brutal treatment like beating, shaving of heads or putting the victims on fire in full public gaze of the members of the society reflect that the victims are treated as inanimate objects totally oblivious of the law of the land and absolutely unconcerned with the feelings of the victim who face such cruelty and eventually succumb to them.

C) The parallel law enforcement agencies consisting of leading men of a group having the same lineage or caste comprise themselves into an assembly and deal with the problems that affect the group in the manner they want to and nurture the feeling that their duty is sanctified and their action of punishing the hapless victims is inviolable. They are known by the names Panchayats or Khap Panchayats and try to adopt the chosen course of ‘more vigilantism’ and enforce their diktats by assuming to themselves the role of social or community guardians which have the power to punish for the crimes and direct for social boycott or killing by a mob. For them, it is the projected honour that rules supreme and the lives of others become subservient to their desires and decisions.

D) These extra constitutional Bodies which engage in feudalistic activities have no compunction to commit such crimes which are offences under the Indian Penal Code.

E) Article 21 which provides for protection of life and personal liberty and guard basic human rights and equality of status has not been taken care of by these bodies.

Respondent’s Contention

A) Honour Killings are treated as murder as defined under Section 300 of the IPC and punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. As the police and public order are state subjects under the Constitution, it is primarily the responsibility of the states to deal with honour killings

B) Central Government is engaging various States and Union Territories for considering a proposal to either amend the IPC or enact a separate legislation to address this menace.

C) Since the matter of the 242nd law commission report falls under list 3 i.e. Concurrent list of the seventh schedule to the Constitution of India, consultation with the governments of the states and UTs is a sine qua non for taking a policy decision in this regard.

D) Although some states have formed an action plan in the name in pursuance of the directions issued by this court, yet they have failed to effectively implement the same in letter and spirit.

E) And so effective guidelines to the police and law enforcement agencies to curb the menace of honour killing need to be formulated and implemented.

RATIONALE DECIDENDI:

 

Directives issued by the court

Preventive measures

State govt. are requested to identify areas where incidents killings or assembly of Kaph panchayats have been reported in the last 5 years

If a police officer comes to know of any gathering of Khap panchayat taking place in the area, should inform his superior officer as well as Deputy/ Superintendent of Police.

On receipt of such information, DSP/SP is required to be present and he shall inform the members that they are not to take any decision to harm the couple or their family. If such a decision is taken each member will be criminally liable.

 

 

DEFECTS IN THE LAW:

That is Delhi Commission for women had filed a writ petition in DCW vs Union of India 2019 demanding for proper implementation of these guidelines.

The Government will have to formulate and implement policies in order to uplift the socio-economic condition of women, sensitisation of the police and other parties concerned towards the need for gender equality.Court held that the assertion of choice is an insegregable facet of Liberty and Dignity. The choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and the values it stands for. It is the obligation of the Constitutional Courts as the sentinel on qui vive to zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual as the dignified existence of an individual has an inseparable association with liberty.

 

CASE COMMENT

Even after the spread of education and the laws guaranteeing equal status for both men and women, women are still considered inferior. The society also treats mothers, daughters, and sisters, whether subservient or self-sacrificing. Choosing a life partner is not a crime, and it is unfair to punish someone in the name of caste, community, gothra, and a few other criteria. The Court, in this case, has rightly condemned the whole "Honor Killings" scenario, which violates the fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is of paramount importance to the laws of our country. It is pitiful and unbearable to pursue any such method of retribution under the veil of one's family name and pride.

Second, neither Panchayat nor the family members have the power to punish couples who are regarded as sinners and suffer irreparably at the hands of these communities. Society needs to recognize that autonomy is individualistic. The only way to prosecute someone is by following judicial processes. In the eyes of the law, marriage is not a crime even though the two people belong to a different caste, culture, or religion. The direction is given by the Court to eradicate the practice of "Honour Killing" is an important move that can eliminate or minimize the serious phenomenon of such incidents.

Shakti Vahini v. Union of India is a case in which the Court ordered the state governments and the police force to set up a comprehensive system to help society eradicate the crime of Honour Killing. In addition, the Court has developed some preventive, corrective, and remedial measures for the statesand the police to create a strong framework. This case is a blatant example representing the triumph of dynamic and free-thinking over the stagnating and irrational ideologies that dominate society. The Court held that the statement of preference was a segregable facet of independence and dignity. The choice of a person is an inextricable part of dignity to undermine the dignity of choice. The definition of freedom must be weighted down and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, security, and principles that it stands for. It is the responsibility of the constitutional courts, as a sentinel of Qui Vive, to cherish the right to liberty of a person as the dignified life of an individual has an inseparable connection with liberty. Suppose freedom cannot be preserved, subject to legally acceptable provisions of the law. In that case, a person's life becomes equivalent to that of a living dead who must suffer violence and torture without complaint and accept the intrusion of thoughts and opinions without a voice of dissent or debate or record a disagreement.

If the right to express one's preference is inhibited, integrity cannot be regarded in its sanctified completeness. When two adults marry out of their own will, they choose their course, consummate their relationship, have the right to do so, and any infringement of that right is a constitutional breach. Such groups or assemblies, acting by a majority in the name of the class or the sacred honor of the clan, cannot assert the force, the authority, and the final say to enforce any penalty. The elders of the family should never be permitted to proclaim a verdict driven by a certain notion of passion and eradicate the life of young people who have exercised their option to marry against the wishes of their elders or contrary to the traditional practice of their clan. The constitution and the laws of their country do not recognize such an act, and the entire operation is unlawful and punishable as an offense under criminal law.

The Court referred to the 242nd report submitted by the Indian Law Commission. It claimed that the words "honor killing" and "honor crimes" are used loosely as convenient phrases and as more of a catchphrase than an apt or accurate term to characterize the instances of violence and abuse of young couples expected to marry or marry against the wishes of the community or family members. There are claims that extreme action, including mental torture, infliction or threat of serious bodily harm, improper detention, constant abuse, and sometimes even murder, includes close relationships or third parties.

Honor killings are condemned as a significant violation of human rights and are also debated by international organizations. For example, the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention and Regulation of Violence against Women and Domestic Violence deals with the topic referred to in Article 21, which deals with insufficient justifications for crimes, including crimes committed in the name of honor.The Law Commission had drawn up a bill stating that the principle underpinning the provisions of the bill is that there mustbe a threshold bar against a community or assembly to condemn the conduct of young persons of a marriageable age who marry based on their preference, on the ground that they belong to the same gotra or belong to different castes and communities. These communities, also referred to as Panchayat or caste elders, have no right to interfere with the life and freedom of those young couples whose marriages are allowed by law and cannot establish a risky and hostile situation in the village/locality concerned. The same assembly is made for an improper reason, i.e., objecting to marriage that is otherwise legal and within the scope of the law. Their conduct should be regarded as an offense since it endangers the lives and freedoms of the individual concerned. Such assemblies shall have no respect for life and liberty. Such actions shall be duly dealt with by criminal law without recourse to any prosecution under general criminal law for the commission of offenses, including abdication and conspiracy

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The honourable court had put up the best suggestion for the government. Now began the role of government, by introducing new bills and pass them soon, so that the honour crimes could stop instantly. This case has a celebrated judgment that will sternly deal with the barbaric acts of honour crimes and went to lay down some specific guidelines for the safety of couples and individuals. Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) filed a petition for the protection of couples who are victims of honour crimes and asked for efficient implementation of the guideline framed in Shakti Vahini vs. union of India[9]. Every second day one can hear about honour killings happening in India. Sometimes the honour killing or murder is done by individuals' fathers, brothers, and uncles. A life without honour is worthless of living but killing someone for honour is murder. Khap Panchayats is also showing disrespect towards the laws established in the Constitution of India and offering punishments such as honour killings to people who try to stigmatize their community. The transformation is predictable when the community itself engages constructively in empowering woman by giving her education, by giving authority to able women, and by acknowledging her for who she is. If there is no moral support from her, her own family, and community any law or international awareness will become futile. As well said by someone “change is inevitable”, the ignorance in the mind of people should be replaced with wisdom regarding the impact of honour killing on the future generation of the victim’s family. this crime strengthens the awareness of the public and moderates this evil in course of time. In the current time, Indian youth needs stricter laws to tackle these kinds of crimes, or these unofficial and unauthorized organizations will keep on making decisions that are inhuman and cannot be pardoned. Even the honourable supreme court gives capital punishment under the most extreme conditions. And these Panchayatsor anyone in this world does not have the right to write down a death sentence for an innocent fellow human.

 

THANK YOU.

 

Name – Saheli Ghosh

Intern at Edge Law Partners

College -Techno India  University