What did the Supreme Court decide in Shakti Vahini?

The Court affirmed that choosing one’s partner is a fundamental right and issued preventive, remedial, and punitive directions to stop honour killings.

Are Khap Panchayats legally recognized?

No. There is no legal sanction for Khap Panchayats to pass decisions that curb adult choices or encourage honour crimes.

Which rights protect partner choice?

Articles 19 and 21 protect autonomy, dignity, expression, and privacy—together they secure an adult’s choice of partner.

What measures did the Court prescribe?

Early police alerts, protection cells, safe houses, district-level monitoring, swift FIRs, and accountability of officials for inaction.

How do IPC and BNS map here?

Honour killings are murders: IPC 300→BNS 101; IPC 302→BNS 103. The ruling focuses on prevention and strict prosecution.

Shakti Vahini v. Union of India

Supreme Court’s strong stand against honour killings: partner choice is a fundamental right; States must act with preventive, remedial, and punitive steps.

Supreme Court of India India AIR 2018 SC 1601 Constitutional & Criminal Law ~7 min read Writ Petition Allowed

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court treated honour killings as murders and pushed States to act before violence happens. Adults have a right to choose their partners. The Court issued a full action-plan: preventive steps (early alerts, safe houses), remedial steps (protection and counseling), and punitive steps (swift FIRs and strict accountability).

Partner Choice = Fundamental Right Prevent • Remedy • Punish AIR 2018 SC 1601

Issues

Is the right to choose one’s partner a fundamental right under the Constitution?
Do Khap Panchayats have any legal validity to control adult marriages?
What systems must States adopt to curb honour crimes effectively?

Rules

Fundamental Rights: Articles 19 & 21 protect autonomy, dignity, privacy, and expression—these include partner choice.
No Legal Sanction for Khaps: No law authorizes any community body to punish consenting adults.
Murder Law: Honour killings are murders (IPC 300→BNS 101; IPC 302→BNS 103) and must be prosecuted strictly.

Directions emphasize prevention, protection, and prosecution.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic summarising the petition and directions

Research Trigger: Shakti Vahini, authorized by NCW, studied honour killings in Haryana & Western UP.

Rising Fear: Many couples avoided marriage due to threats and social pressure.

Writ Petition: Mandamus under Article 32 seeking action plans and protection mechanisms.

Core Claim: Khap Panchayat interference is unconstitutional; adults’ partner choice must be protected.

Reasons for Honour Crimes (not exhaustive): pre-marital relations, refusing arranged marriage, seeking divorce, custody disputes, leaving home, “family honour” narratives, even rape victims being blamed.

State’s Stand: Honour killings are murders under IPC; punishment lies under Section 302 (now BNS 103).

Arguments

Petitioner (Shakti Vahini)

Adults can choose partners; community bodies cannot override this right.
Courts must direct States to create protection cells, safe houses, helplines.
Officials must be duty-bound to prevent gatherings that threaten couples.

Respondent (State)

Honour killings are already punishable as murder (IPC 302/BNS 103).
Implementation support and clearer protocols may reduce incidents.
Police need early-warning systems and clear accountability.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the petition. It declared that “family honour” can never justify violence. Partner choice is protected by the Constitution. The Court issued a comprehensive set of preventive, remedial, and punitive directions to all States and Union Territories.

Result: Writ Allowed — Binding Directions to Governments.

Ratio Decidendi

Adults’ autonomy and dignity (Arts. 19 & 21) protect partner choice.
Community assemblies cannot police marriages; they have no legal status.
States have a positive duty to prevent honour crimes and protect couples.

Why It Matters

The ruling moves the focus from punishment after death to prevention before harm. It equips police and administration with clear duties, and reassures couples that the Constitution stands with their choices.

Key Takeaways

Partner choice is a fundamental right (Arts. 19 & 21).
Khap decisions have no legal force against consenting adults.
States must set up protection cells, safe houses, helplines.
Police must use early-warning to stop hostile gatherings.
Honour killings = murder (IPC 300/302 → BNS 101/103).

Perfect for exam answers on autonomy and honour crimes.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “C.P.P.” — Choice is a right, Prevent before harm, Prosecute as murder.

Step 1: Confirm adult consent & autonomy.
Step 2: Activate protection protocols early.
Step 3: Treat honour killing as murder, prosecute fast.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can society-led bodies restrict adult marriages, and what must the State do to stop honour crimes?

Rule: Articles 19 & 21 protect partner choice; community bodies lack legal authority; honour killings are murders.

Application: Evidence of threats and social pressure justified Court directions for prevention, protection, and prosecution.

Conclusion: Petition allowed; detailed preventive, remedial, and punitive measures ordered.

Glossary

Honour Killing: Murder motivated by “family/community honour” claims—punishable as murder.
Khap Panchayat: Community assembly with no legal authority to control adult marriages.
Writ of Mandamus: Court order directing a public authority to perform a duty.