Case Analysis on "SHAKTI VAHINI VS UNION OF INDIA" by Sakshi Choubey

 

SHAKTI VAHINI VS UNION OF INDIA

INTRODUCTION

There is no doubt that the custom is an important source of the law. On the question of whether or not custom should be treated as law, two main schools of thought predominate.

Since it did not spring from the intent of the sovereign, jurists like Austin argued, custom should not be recognized as law. Savigny and other jurists place great stock on precedent and customs as the cornerstones of lawmaking. The will of the people, not the will of the sovereign, is the true source of law, in his view. Throughout history, social norms have mirrored the will of the people. Hence, custom serves as a primary source of law. Any given tradition or custom may only be considered legitimate if it has been maintained without break for a considerable amount of time. It's not enough for a custom to have been around for a long time; it also has to have widespread public approval and be morally acceptable. The adoption of every tradition, however, is not necessary. The present case is based on the concept of custom related to Honour killing in India that was practiced before.

Cultural crimes can be defined as the crimes that take place within the context of culture or under the head of it. Honour killing is one such cultural crime that is very much prevalent in our country. The Human Rights Watch defines honour killings as “the acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family.” Therefore, in an attempt to make the victim a pariah, the family members murder them. Honour killing is when a person, either a man or a woman, is killed for marrying the person they want. When it comes to the honour of the family, the person with the most power in the family cares about the family's reputation and status but forgets to show love and care for the other people in the family. The research paper talks about honour killings in India and what the law says about them. There are things in society that cause these things to happen.

When it comes to the issue of "honour killing," the case of Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India represents a watershed moment. The term "honour killing" refers to the murder of a family member by another family member because those murdering believe the victim has shamed the family by breaking the norms of the community. The northern part of India, in particular, has long been known for this custom. The case presented the court with a set of recommendations on how the government might reduce the prevalence of honour killings in India.

FACTS

In this case, the National Commission for Women gave the Petitioner group, Shakti Vahini, permission to undertake a research study on honour killing in the states of Haryana, Punjab, and Northern Uttar Pradesh. A Writ Petition was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to request that the state and central governments do something to stop honour killings from happening. For the couples' protection, they asked the court to order the state governments to set up cells in each area where they can be reached readily. The Petitioner group filed for injunctive relief to allow the couples to wed outside their hometowns. The Petitioners also requested that a letter of mandamus be issued to the respective state governments, ordering them to investigate and bring criminal charges against those responsible for honour killings.

ISSUE

Whether or not a person has the freedom to pick his or her life partner and whether or not the elders of the family or the Panchayats have the authority to murder the young couples for marrying against their choice?

ARGUMENTS

The group, Shakti Vahini, said that the Khap Panchayats or the elders of the family feel no regret or hesitation while committing Honour crimes since there is no appropriate law or provision for Honour crimes in the IPC. They also used Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which outlaws honour killing, in support of their case.. They argued that the measures taken by the Panchayats and other family members for the sake of their honour were harsh and unlawful, and that it was the right of each individual to marry the person of their choice. They said that the Panchayats and family elders give off the impression that honour is paramount and that everyone else's life are expendable in the service of their own whims and judgements. It was also stated that Section 300 of the IPC classifies honour killing as murder and that Section 302 of the IPC specifies the penalty for this offence. They stated that it is the obligation of the State government to either change the current sections of the IPC or to develop a new separate law to deal with this scourge.

 

JUDGEMENT

Former CJI Dipak Misra mentioned the crucial passages of the 242nd report of the Law Commission which summarises the scenario of honour killing. A three-judge panel ruled that a marriage between two adults who each provide their informed consent is legal and binding without further authorization. Court concluded that an action done by the Khap panchayat or the family members to restrict the two consenting adults to be married is unlawful. The Court observed, “Class honour, howsoever conceived cannot suffocate the choice of an individual which he/she is allowed to enjoy under our humane Constitution”. Any forms of honour-based criminality that aim to prevent a person from marrying for love were deemed to be unlawful. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution prohibits acts that violate the dignity of an individual. The court ruled that the freedom to marry exists under the Constitution when two consenting adults make that choice for themselves. Thus, any infringement of the abovementioned right is a violation of the Constitution. The Court went on to explain why these crimes are committed and why women are disproportionately affected by them. According to the Court, human rights violations such as honour killings are addressed by international organisations all over the world for a reason. Also, the Supreme Court said that the Hindu Marriage Act, or any other legislation, does not prohibit weddings between people of different castes. This was based on case of “Lata Singh vs. State of UP”[1]. According to the article, once a person reaches the age of majority in India (18 years old), he or she is free to marry anybody they want. The case of Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab [2] was cited as well, in which it was decided that honour killing violates an individual's right to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to make one's own decisions about one's own body.

CRITICAL VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS

We see various judgements of the Supreme Court wherein the judges classified the act of honour killing not as a rarest of rare case but as a shameful act that is graver than homicides. Hence, the culprits deserve a maximum punishment of death. Killing someone for someone else’s honour is violation of the Constitution of India and hence, anyone going against it must obviously be punished. In landmark cases like State of UP v. Krishna Master and Ors [3]and Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, the Supreme Court had clearly set the record straight, by holding that in cases where there had been killing several family members on the flimsy ground of saving the honour of the family itself, the same would most definitely fall under the ‘rarest of rare cases.’ Hence, capital punishments of the respondents were justified. The crimes of honour killings are barbaric, grave and cold-blooded murders that shake the social fabric.

Reflecting upon the measures adopted by the Judiciary:

In this instance, the popular consciousness of the people in that society does hold that it is right to kill someone as apparently the ‘honour’ of the community or family will be saved. If today, such customary crimes become law, it would be very problematic. This patriarchal structure of the society definitely violates the basic rights that the Constitution of our country guarantees to us. The jurists have also presented the rationale for imposition of punishments on such murderers. Accordingly, laws against such customary crimes are not found in nature or the belief system of the people, but made in the process of removing the harsh patriarchal structures that snatches the right to live of several other people in the case society. And the same is related with the Volksgeist theory of Jurisprudence therefore, we can state that, ‘volksgeist’ is not generally the law, but just a mere belief system of the people that can be either good or extremely bad for the society in the long run.

CONCLUSION

There are no specific laws to tackle the cases of honour killings. The murders come under the general heads of homicide or manslaughter under the Penal code. These crimes are usually committed by a mob from one community or family; which makes it difficult to pin-point one single culprit. However, the judicial decisions in cases of honour killing hints to protect the tenets of the Constitution by going against the popular belief of the community being involved. Honour killings are often driven by societal and cultural norms that emphasize the importance of family honour and reputation. Such killings are not only a gross violation of human rights but also represent a significant challenge to India's efforts to create a more inclusive and equitable society. It is vital to recognize that honour killings are a form of gender-based violence that disproportionately affects women. While men can also fall victim to honour killings, women are often the primary targets due to deeply ingrained patriarchal attitudes that view them as property and subordinate to men. In conclusion, the practice of honour killing in contemporary India is a grave human rights violation that needs to be addressed urgently. It requires a collective effort by the government, civil society, and the public to challenge and change the cultural norms that promote such practices. Ultimately, it is essential to recognize the inherent dignity and value of every individual, regardless of gender, caste, or community, and to ensure that everyone has the right to live with freedom and dignity.

---

[1] (2006) 5 SCC 475.

[2] (1994) 3 SCC 569

[3] 1988 AIR 2154