In India, the concept of izzat (honour) carries immense significance, deeply ingrained in its socio-cultural fabric. This notion of honour is often tied to gender, caste, and familial relationships, with women’s bodies frequently perceived as the vessels of familial or communal pride. Men too, particularly those defying caste hierarchies through inter-caste or intra-gotra marriages, become targets of this patriarchal construct of honour. The perceived dishonour arising from exercising autonomy in marriage, relationships, or sexual identity triggers brutal acts of violence, known as so-called honour crimes.
Predominantly observed in states like Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh, so-called honour crimes are not merely isolated incidents but systemic acts rooted in caste-based oppression and patriarchal control. Despite judicial interventions like Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) and the 2012 recommendations by the Law Commission of India, the absence of specific legislation reflects the entrenched power of khap panchayats and the political system’s dependence on them. This blog argues that India’s failure to enact a law on so-called honour crimes arises from systemic collusion between traditional power structures and political opportunism, exacerbating societal resistance to legal and social reform.
The Geography of so-called Honour Crimes: Haryana as a Hotspot
The so-called honour crimes, while widespread across India, are disproportionately reported in regions like Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Bihar. These areas are united by entrenched caste hierarchies and patriarchal traditions that prioritise communal honour over individual autonomy. Personal choices, whether in inter-caste, inter-religious, intra-gotra, or same-sex relationships, often trigger violent reprisals justified in the name of maintaining communal or familial izzat (communal/familial honour).
Among these regions, Haryana stands out due to its stringent enforcement of caste purity and adherence to the gotra system, which governs permissible marriage alliances. Dr. Aarti Mohan Kalnawat, in her paper Indian Legal Framework on Honour Killing, highlights Haryana’s deep-seated caste and patriarchal norms as critical drivers of so-called honour crimes. She argues that these crimes are not isolated acts, but systemic practices rooted in traditional structures that resist modern constitutional values. This is evident in the Manoj and Babli case (2010), where a couple’s same-gotra marriage led to their abduction and murder on the orders of a khap panchayat. This rigid adherence to the gotra system underscores the caste element at play in cases like Manoj and Babli’s. In Haryana, the gotra system dictates that individuals sharing the same gotra (a lineage or clan identifier) are considered siblings, even if unrelated by blood. Marriages within the same gotra are perceived as incestuous and a violation of caste purity. The khap panchayat, acting as a self-styled custodian of these norms, declared the couple’s marriage invalid, viewing it as a direct affront to community values and the caste order.
This enforcement of caste purity is not merely cultural but systemic, as it seeks to maintain hierarchical social structures. In the case of Manoj and Babli, their same-gotra marriage was labelled a dishonour to the community, leading to their brutal murder. The panchayat’s actions exemplify how caste dynamics intertwine with violence to suppress autonomy and uphold traditional social order. This case illustrates the collision between constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and the socio-cultural emphasis on caste-based compliance, highlighting the entrenched resistance to progressive reform in rural India. Despite the landmark judgment by the Karnal District Court in the Manoj and Babli case, which sentenced five individuals to death, such crimes still persist. This reflects a conflict between individual rights and societal expectations, which is carefully explained by the Social Expectation theory.
The Social Expectation theory of culture offers a framework to understand the persistence of these crimes. This theory suggests that cultural norms are reinforced through collective expectations, where conformity is rewarded and deviation is met with severe sanctions. In the context of Haryana, the khap panchayat’s diktats reflect these entrenched expectations, positioning themselves as protectors of cultural continuity. The same-gotra marriage violated these shared norms, triggering violent reprisals to restore the perceived “order.” This theory elucidates how societal expectations, deeply rooted in caste and patriarchal ideologies, perpetuate systemic violence and inhibit progressive reform.
The Manoj and Babli case demonstrates how this theory operates in real-world scenarios: the panchayat’s actions were less about the couple’s individual choices and more about enforcing broader communal expectations. The violence was a means of signalling to the community that deviations from caste and gotra norms would not be tolerated, thereby ensuring collective adherence to traditional values. These examples show that Haryana’s role as a hotspot of so-called honour crimes derives from its deeply institutionalised caste and patriarchal systems. By normalizing violence through cultural legitimacy, the socio-cultural framework creates an environment resistant to legislative reform. This aligns with the broader argument that entrenched norms, reinforced by social expectations, pose significant barriers to progressive change, sustaining the systemic oppression of individual rights.
Khap Panchayats and Political Powerplay
Khap panchayats, particularly in Haryana, operate as self-styled informal bodies that illegally enforce deeply entrenched caste and patriarchal norms. While officially lacking legal authority, their influence on rural communities is profound. By issuing diktats that regulate personal behaviour, particularly marriage, they perpetuate violence to maintain socio-cultural hierarchies. This dominance thrives due to systemic political complicity and societal reliance on their swift, albeit regressive, methods of justice. One such example of their so-called “justice” occurred in 2014, when a khap panchayat in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh decreed that two Dalit sisters be raped and paraded naked as punishment for their brother’s alleged elopement with a woman from a higher caste. This shocking diktat, intended to restore the “honour” of the aggrieved caste, underscores the brutal and oppressive nature of khap-enforced “justice.” Despite widespread outrage and condemnation, the incident reflects how such informal bodies wield unchecked power to enforce their regressive social codes, often with impunity. These actions not only perpetuate violence but also reinforce deeply ingrained caste and patriarchal hierarchies under the guise of cultural preservation.
Dr. Aarti Mohan Kalnawat’s analysis sheds light on how khap panchayats derive their authority by positioning themselves as guardians of tradition and culture. They achieve this by rigidly enforcing caste hierarchies and controlling women’s autonomy, which they see as central to maintaining the “purity” of social order. By policing behaviours like marriage choices, particularly inter-caste or same-gotra unions, khaps claim cultural legitimacy that resonates within their communities, allowing them to exert influence despite their lack of legal authority. This self-styled role directly subverts constitutional values, as the autonomy guaranteed by fundamental rights is overridden by regressive diktats. For instance, women’s bodies and choices are often treated as symbols of family or community honour, making them primary targets of khaps’ control mechanisms. By restricting women’s agency, khaps ensure conformity to patriarchal and caste-based norms, using social ostracization, financial penalties, or even extreme violence as tools of enforcement.
The Jamia Report adds depth to this argument by highlighting the failure of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), which are intended to function democratically at the grassroots level. The inability of PRIs to deliver justice and governance creates a power vacuum that khaps exploit, effectively establishing themselves as parallel, shadow governance structures. This vacuum allows them to institutionalise patriarchal norms, embedding practices like honour killings into community frameworks and legitimizing them as forms of “justice.” Together, these insights underscore that khaps are not benign cultural relics but active agents of a socio-political system that thrives on violence and control. Their actions reinforce systemic inequalities, making them a formidable barrier to legal and social reform. This dual framework of exploiting cultural legitimacy and institutional inefficiency ensures their dominance, perpetuating violence under the guise of preserving tradition.
Political Complicity in Sustaining Violence
The khaps also play a pivotal role in shaping the state-level political dynamics in Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, which earns them the trust of several politicians across the party-lines who bank upon the khaps for electoral gains. As Puneet Kaur Grewal notes, politicians openly defend khaps to appease caste-aligned constituencies. The Jamia Report also expands on this by showing how leaders like Bhupinder Singh Hooda and Arvind Kejriwal endorse khaps under the guise of preserving culture. A prominent example of this political endorsement can be seen in the statements of former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda. During his tenure, Hooda openly defended khap panchayats, equating them to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and resident welfare associations (RWAs). In a widely reported speech, he remarked, “khap panchayats are like NGOs… they are part of our culture,” effectively legitimizing their role in society and politics. Similarly, Arvind Kejriwal, during his tenure as Delhi Chief Minister, expressed his reluctance to ban khap panchayats, stating that they serve a “cultural purpose.” In one of his campaign speeches, Kejriwal remarked, “No, it is not a question of banning these panchayats… khap panchayats are a group of people who come together. There is no bar on people to assemble in this country.”
These endorsements demonstrate how political leaders, across party lines, align with khaps to appeal to caste-aligned constituencies under the guise of preserving cultural traditions. This tacit support reinforces the socio-political dominance of khaps, further entrenching their influence in rural governance and electoral strategies. This demonstrates the intentional political decision to prioritise electoral gains over human rights and constitutional values. By highlighting political complicity, these analyses illustrate how the dominance of khaps is not accidental but actively maintained by state actors. This complicity is further evident in instances where khap leaders themselves enter electoral politics, leveraging their influence to secure positions of power.
For instance, Naresh Tikait, a prominent khap leader and head of the Baliyan khap in western Uttar Pradesh, contested elections for the Lok Sabha in 2014 as a candidate of the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD). Similarly, Sombir Sangwan, a khap leader in Haryana, successfully contested the 2019 Haryana Assembly elections as an independent candidate from Dadri. Such examples illustrate how khap leaders directly participate in mainstream politics, further institutionalising their socio-political dominance and ensuring the preservation of regressive traditions under the pretext of electoral representation. This directly exposes the systemic barriers, rooted in electoral politics, that prevent the passage of specific laws addressing so-called honour crimes. The electoral dependence on khaps by political parties and the active political engagement of khap leaders reflect a troubling entrenchment of caste-based and patriarchal ideologies in governance. This interplay between political complicity and the socio-cultural dominance of khaps creates significant hurdles in addressing systemic violence. The reluctance to challenge these traditional power structures not only sustains their influence but also perpetuates legislative inertia.
Legislative Gaps: Why No Law Yet?
Despite the judiciary’s recognition of so- called honour crimes as a grave societal issue and the recommendations of the Shakti Vahini case, India lacks a specific legal framework to address these systemic acts of violence. The inaction is a product of political hesitation, legal limitations, and systemic neglect, leaving victims vulnerable and justice elusive.
The reluctance to legislate against so- called honour crimes originates from political reliance on caste-based vote banks. Khap panchayats, with their influence over rural constituencies, act as significant power brokers, dissuading governments from enacting laws that would challenge their dominance. Brinda Karat, a prominent leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has been a vocal critic of the political reluctance to legislate against so- called honour crimes, attributing it to vote-bank politics and the appeasement of regressive social forces. She argues that the failure to enact specific laws addressing so- called honour killings is due to political considerations aimed at placating orthodox caste panchayats, such as khap panchayats, under the guise of preserving tradition. She views this political complicity as a betrayal of constitutional values, emboldening perpetrators and perpetuating systemic violence. Karat emphasises the urgent need for comprehensive legislation to protect individuals from caste-based and patriarchal oppression, highlighting the responsibility of governments to prioritise human rights over electoral considerations.
As noted in the Jamia Report, no government has risked alienating rural constituencies controlled by khaps, prioritizing electoral stability over human rights. For example, the 2012 Prevention of Interference with Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances Bill, which sought to criminalise unlawful assemblies and intimidation by caste councils, remains unpassed despite clear recommendations from the Law Commission and the Supreme Court of India.
Limitations of Existing Laws
So-called honour crimes are currently prosecuted under general laws like Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. However, these provisions fail to capture the systemic and collective nature of so- called honour crimes, where the violence often involves family and community complicity. Ritabrata Roy and Shahzeb Ahmed critique this legal framework, observing that the lack of specificity in existing laws enables such crimes to persist under the guise of tradition.
The structural inadequacies of the Special Marriage Act further exacerbate the risks faced by vulnerable couples as it mandates a 30-day public notice period for interfaith and inter-caste marriages, exposing couples to threats and violence during their most vulnerable moments. Anand Mishra, in his analysis, critiques this requirement as a procedural delay that fails to adapt to India’s socio-cultural realities, leaving couples unprotected during a critical period.
In April 2023, during hearings on same-sex marriage petitions, the Supreme Court critically examined the 30-day notice period under the Special Marriage Act. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi called it an “invitation to disaster and violence,” arguing it infringes on privacy and decisional autonomy. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud concurred, stating the provision exposes couples to societal intrusion, while Justice S. Ravindra Bhat labeled it “patriarchal,” reflecting outdated norms. These remarks underscore the Court’s recognition of the provision’s potential to violate personal autonomy, aligning with calls for its reconsideration.
As observed by Roy and Ahmed, the judiciary’s recognition of so- called honour crimes remains limited to isolated acts of violence rather than addressing their systemic socio-cultural roots. This narrow approach is compounded by the legislature’s failure to enact specific laws targeting these crimes, reflecting a reluctance to challenge entrenched caste and patriarchal hierarchies that normalise such acts. This legislative inertia underscores the difficulty of dismantling the structural barriers that perpetuate so- called honour crimes, highlighting the urgent need for political will and comprehensive reform.
Judicial Interventions and Their Limitations
The judiciary has undoubtedly played a significant role in addressing so- called honour crimes, delivering verdicts that emphasise individual autonomy and constitutional freedoms. However, its impact remains constrained by systemic barriers and enforcement gaps. In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to marry freely under Articles 19 and 21, directing states to establish protective mechanisms and prohibit unlawful khap decrees. While progressive in its outlook, the judgment’s effectiveness is hampered by the lack of rigorous enforcement mechanisms, leaving its directives largely aspirational. Similarly, in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), the Court condemned honour killings as barbaric and urged states to protect individuals exercising their rights to marry. Yet, the judgment failed to prescribe specific preventive measures, relying instead on voluntary compliance by state agencies—an approach that has proven ineffective in dismantling entrenched socio-cultural norms. Another critical judgment, Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011), directly criticised caste assemblies and khap panchayats, terming their interference in personal freedoms unconstitutional. Despite this strong stance, the absence of follow-up measures to ensure compliance weakened the ruling’s transformative potential.
The judiciary’s progressive pronouncements often collide with the realities of a deeply divided society, where caste and patriarchal norms hold significant sway. These rulings, while commendable, fail to address the structural challenges that sustain so- called honour crimes. Urban-centric judgments, shaped by constitutional ideals, often lack the nuanced understanding of rural socio-economic dependencies and power dynamics that perpetuate such violence. Furthermore, the judiciary’s reliance on existing penal provisions, such as Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, rather than advocating for a comprehensive legal framework, underscores its limitations in confronting the systemic nature of so- called honour crimes. The judiciary alone cannot dismantle the cultural and patriarchal foundations that normalise these acts, and its inability to enforce progressive judgments reflects the broader failure of the state to challenge entrenched structures of power.
This systemic failure is amplified by the absence of legislative support, leaving the judiciary to operate in isolation without the backing of a robust legal framework that recognises so- called honour crimes as a distinct category. The disconnect between judicial pronouncements and grassroots realities underscores a deeper issue: the persistence of patriarchal and caste-based ideologies that thrive on the subjugation of individual freedoms. These ideologies, embedded within rural governance structures and cultural traditions, perpetuate resistance to reform, creating a cycle of violence and impunity. Addressing this requires not only legal and judicial action but also a fundamental re-evaluation of the cultural glorification of so- called honour and its patriarchal underpinnings—a theme that demands exploration in the context of pathways to reform.
Patriarchy, Honour, and Pathways to Reform
The cultural glorification of izzat (honour), particularly in rural India, entrenches patriarchal control by tying family dignity to women’s autonomy and caste purity. As Jyothi Vishwanath and Srinivas C. Palakonda argue, this cultural framework legitimises violence against women and men who defy societal expectations, reinforcing gendered oppression and caste hierarchies. Economic dependency and limited educational opportunities for women in rural India are integral to the perpetuation of patriarchal norms and honour-based violence. Women in rural areas often lack access to formal employment, with their economic contributions restricted to unpaid household labor or informal sectors. According to the 2022 Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation report, rural women’s labor force participation remains significantly lower than men’s, limiting financial independence and reinforcing dependence on male family members.
Educational disparities further exacerbate this dynamic. Rural female literacy rates lag significantly behind male counterparts, with minimal representation in higher education. This deprivation not only restricts economic mobility but also limits awareness of legal rights and social protections, making women more vulnerable to patriarchal control. The societal perception of women as bearers of family honour amplifies this vulnerability. Deviations from societal norms, such as inter-caste marriages or pursuing autonomy, are perceived as threats to this honour, often met with violent reprisals sanctioned by bodies like khap panchayats. For instance, in the infamous Manoj and Babli case (2010), a same-gotra marriage provoked fatal violence, highlighting how women’s autonomy becomes a battleground for preserving caste and patriarchal hierarchies.
Such incidents underscore the structural barriers preventing women from exercising agency, perpetuating a cycle where economic and educational dependency legitimises violence under the guise of cultural honour. Addressing these issues demands systemic reforms that integrate education, economic empowerment, and legal protections, directly challenging the patriarchal structures sustaining honour-based violence.
Increased awareness and education among women have begun challenging patriarchal norms, but this progress has provoked a violent backlash from traditionalists resistant to change. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data reveals a disturbing rise in honour-related killings, with cases increasing from 28 in 2014 to over 70 reported in 2019. Many such crimes remain unrecorded due to societal complicity and fear of reprisal. Khap panchayats exploit this resistance by positioning themselves as arbiters of “justice,” issuing regressive diktats that bypass constitutional law. Acting as de facto courts, these bodies perpetuate violence against individuals exercising autonomy, undermining systemic reform efforts and exposing the urgent need for a comprehensive legal framework to curb such acts.
To counteract this, legislative reform must define honour crimes as a distinct category, penalising instigators and executors alike. The 242nd Law Commission Report recommends reducing the Special Marriage Act’s 30-day notice requirement to protect vulnerable couples, alongside shifting the burden of proof to perpetrators. Additionally, grassroots education campaigns are essential to challenge patriarchal norms, while stricter enforcement mechanisms, such as penalizing police inaction, can ensure victim protection..
Global examples like Turkey and the UK demonstrate the efficacy of specific laws in shifting societal attitudes. As Honour Killing: The Law It Is and the Law It Ought to Be notes, proactive legislative and social reform can gradually erode cultural barriers to change. This dual approach, targeting systemic patriarchy through legal reform and grassroots activism, addresses the socio-political structures that normalise so- called honour crimes. Only by disrupting these entrenched norms can India begin to reduce resistance to legislative progress.
Conclusion
The persistent absence of a specific law addressing so- called honour crimes in India is a stark reminder of the socio-political collusion that sustains caste and patriarchal structures. The Shakti Vahini judgment, while significant, fails to address the structural challenges that allow these crimes to thrive. Its reliance on broad directives, such as banning unlawful assemblies and creating protective mechanisms, lacks the enforceability needed to dismantle systemic oppression.
The legislative void reflects not just political hesitation but also a deeper discomfort with challenging traditional power structures like khap panchayats, which command significant electoral influence. This resistance underscores a troubling reality that socio-cultural norms continue to dominate over constitutional morality. A comprehensive law remains elusive because it threatens the very foundations of caste and patriarchy, which are entrenched in rural governance and politics. Without political will and societal shifts, these crimes will remain a normalised, unchecked affront to individual liberty and equality.
- I would like to thank Sakkcham Singh Parmaar for his inputs in this research.
About the author …
Hello! I am Ananya Singh from Jindal Global Law School. My work spans various fields of law, including family law and intellectual property law, with a particular interest in environmental law and its real-world implications. Beyond editing, I enjoy researching and writing blogs that delve into societal and legal issues, aiming to present clear and actionable perspectives. My experience in courtrooms and legal drafting has shaped my practical understanding of justice and human rights. I believe in the power of collaborative academic efforts to drive change and take pride in ensuring that every piece published contributes value to the discourse. Dedicated and detail-oriented, I strive to make complex ideas accessible and engaging for our readers.
