Summary
The Supreme Court held that consenting adults’ choice of a life partner is protected by constitutional liberty and dignity; family, clan or community approval is unnecessary. Khap or similarly named assemblies cannot adjudicate marital choices or impose coercive punishments. In this public-interest petition, the Court prescribed preventive, remedial and punitive measures against honour crimes, including police intervention, protection of threatened couples, district special cells, helplines and expedited trials. States were directed to implement the measures and report compliance within six weeks.
Issues
- Whether community or family notions of honour could override consenting adults’ lawful marital choice.
- What protective and enforcement directions were required to prevent and remedy honour crimes.
Held
- Consenting adults’ choice of life partners falls within Articles 19 and 21 and is inseparable from dignity. Family or community consent is unnecessary. Questions of legal prohibition or criminality belong to lawful institutions; informal assemblies cannot summon couples, impose sentences or enforce their own understanding of honour. Constructive assemblies that do not offend fundamental rights stand differently. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49)
- Preventive directions required identification of affected areas, heightened police vigilance, prompt reporting of proposed gatherings, senior police intervention, video recording where gatherings nevertheless occurred, and proposals for lawful preventive action where necessary. Central and State authorities were to coordinate sensitisation and institutional measures. (¶¶ 48, 51, 53(I)(a)-(h))
- Remedial directions required prompt FIRs and effective investigation of unlawful diktats and threats, immediate security and safe accommodation where necessary, sensitive threat assessment by senior officers, and assistance for capable adults wishing to solemnise or register their marriage. The Court suggested district safe houses; accommodation for willing married couples could be extended on threat assessment up to one year in aggregate. (¶ 53(II)(a)-(f))
- Failure to comply attracted departmental action for deliberate negligence or misconduct. District special cells and round-the-clock helplines were required. Honour-crime cases, including pending cases, were to proceed before designated or fast-track courts day to day, preferably concluding within six months from cognizance. Departmental proceedings likewise carried a preferable six-month period, not an inflexible outer limit. (¶ 53(III)(a)-(e))
- The Court recommended suitable legislation, while issuing operative protective directions on constitutional principles. Respondent States were to carry out the measures and file compliance reports within six weeks. The proposed Law Commission Bill discussed in the judgment was not itself enacted by this order. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55)
Result
Writ petition disposed of without costs with preventive, remedial and punitive directions; respondent States to implement and report compliance within six weeks.