Introduction
The so- called honour crimes, deeply entrenched in India’s socio-cultural fabric, represent a brutal intersection of caste hierarchies, patriarchal norms, and societal control over individual autonomy. These crimes, which include acts like murder, assault, and harassment, are often carried out to protect family “honour” in response to perceived transgressions such as inter-caste or intra-gotra marriages. Despite their systemic and collective nature, so- called honour crimes remain inadequately addressed within the existing legal framework. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions, such as those for murder or conspiracy, fail to capture the socio-cultural motivations and collective execution often inherent in such cases.
The urgency of addressing so- called honour crimes is underscored by data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). In 2015, there was a significant increase in reported cases, with 251 incidents of so- called honour killings, up from 28 in 2014. Although the numbers fluctuated in subsequent years, with 77 cases in 2016, the persistence of such incidents highlights the inadequacy of current legal measures. However, even these numbers are grossly underestimated as many cases remain unreported or misclassified under other categories. The NCRB itself has admitted that crimes like so- called honour killings are often deemed “vague” and “unreliable” due to the absence of a proper definition, leading to their exclusion from official records and formal recognition not only obscures the true extent of the problem but also hampers justice for victims.
Through an analysis of the gaps in the current legal framework, the socio-political barriers to reform, and the systemic roots of so- called honour crimes, this blog argues that India urgently requires a dedicated law to combat these crimes effectively. Such legislation must account for their collective nature, provide victim protection, and dismantle the socio-political structures that enable their persistence.
The Urgent Need for a Dedicated Law
The Current Legal Deficiency
The scale of so-called honour crimes in India underscores the urgent need for a dedicated law that goes beyond addressing individual acts of violence to tackling their systemic and socio-cultural roots. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), reported honour killings surged by a staggering 792% between 2014 and 2015, rising from 28 to 251 cases in a single year. However, even these alarming figures are likely gross underestimations. The NCRB acknowledges that the absence of a formal definition leads to widespread misclassification or exclusion of cases, further obscuring the true extent of the problem. This lack of systematic documentation not only delays meaningful policy interventions but also perpetuates the invisibility of these crimes within the justice system.
Existing Indian laws, primarily the Indian Penal Code (IPC), exacerbate this invisibility by failing to address the unique socio-cultural dimensions of so-called honour crimes. These acts are typically prosecuted under generic provisions such as Section 302 (murder), Section 307 (attempt to murder), and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy). While these sections criminalise the physical acts, they overlook the specific motivations—rooted in caste, patriarchy, and community control—that distinguish so-called honour crimes from other forms of violence. Moreover, the collective nature of these crimes, often sanctioned or orchestrated by families, communities, or caste-based councils like khap panchayats, is ignored within the current legal framework.
The absence of a distinct legal category for so-called honour crimes creates a critical blind spot. Without recognising the broader societal context enabling such violence, the justice system remains ill-equipped to investigate and prosecute these crimes effectively. For instance, while perpetrators may face convictions for murder or conspiracy, systemic enablers like khap panchayats, which instigate or justify these acts, often evade accountability. This gap in the legal framework highlights the urgent necessity for a dedicated law to address both the individual and collective dimensions of so-called honour crimes, ensuring that the motivations and structures sustaining such violence are explicitly targeted.
By integrating precise documentation with a legal framework that captures the socio-cultural underpinnings of so-called honour crimes, India can begin to dismantle the societal acceptance that allows these heinous acts to persist.
For instance, in the Manoj-Babli case (2010), while the immediate perpetrators were convicted, the role of the khap panchayat that instigated the crime was largely ignored in the legal process. The absence of a clear definition of “honour crime” in Indian law also complicates investigation and prosecution. Perpetrators frequently disguise so-called honour crimes as accidents or suicides, making it difficult to establish intent. This gap in the legal framework not only dilutes accountability but also allows systemic enablers to operate with impunity.
Moreover, the lack of robust victim and witness protection mechanisms under existing laws exacerbates the problem. Families and witnesses often face intense social pressure or threats, deterring them from cooperating with investigations or testifying in court. Without specific provisions to address such intimidation, the IPC remains inadequate in curbing the societal forces that perpetuate so- called honour crimes.
The urgency of addressing so-called honour crimes becomes even clearer when examining other prominent cases in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Punjab, which highlight the systemic gaps in the legal framework. For instance, the Nitish Katara case (2002) from Uttar Pradesh exemplifies the challenges of prosecuting crimes disguised as acts of family honour. Nitish was murdered by the relatives of his partner, Bharti Yadav, who disapproved of their relationship due to caste differences. Despite eventual convictions, the absence of a specific honour crime law meant the case was prosecuted under general murder provisions, failing to address the caste and societal motives behind the crime.
Similarly, the Suresh and Kausalya case (2016) in Tamil Nadu serves as a stark reminder of the brutality of honour killings. Kausalya’s Dalit husband, Suresh, was publicly attacked and murdered by her family in a bid to restore caste honour. While convictions were secured, the societal forces that enabled such a crime were left untouched, reflecting the legal system’s inability to address the broader cultural dynamics.
In Rajasthan, the Bhanwari Devi case (1992) brought to light the intersection of caste and gender violence, where a social worker advocating against child marriages was gang-raped by upper-caste men to silence her. Though not directly an honour killing, the case underscores the structural challenges in prosecuting caste and honour-related crimes in a patriarchal society.
The lack of a dedicated honour crimes law in these cases reveals a pattern that perpetrators are emboldened by legal ambiguities and the absence of societal accountability. The current framework not only fails to account for systemic motives but also inadequately protects those who challenge these regressive norms. Comprehensive legislation is necessary to close these gaps and ensure that so-called honour crimes are addressed as the systemic issue they are, rather than isolated incidents.
A dedicated law on honour crimes would go beyond addressing individual acts of violence to tackling their systemic enablers. By formally defining honour crimes, such legislation would ensure consistent documentation, reporting, and prosecution, fostering accountability and transparency. This formalisation is essential to addressing the longstanding issue of misclassification, where honour killings are often subsumed under generic offences like murder, stripping them of their cultural and systemic context.
Furthermore, such legislation could act as a catalyst for societal change. Beyond its practical enforcement mechanisms, a dedicated law would symbolise the state’s unequivocal commitment to protecting individual rights over regressive cultural practices. This symbolic recognition is crucial in challenging the normalisation of so- called honour crimes within communities and shifting societal attitudes towards violence justified in the name of tradition.
Finally, a dedicated law would institutionalise preventive measures, including educational initiatives and community outreach programs, to address the root causes of so- called honour crimes. Unlike existing laws, which focus primarily on punitive action, a comprehensive legal framework could promote awareness and long-term societal reform, ensuring these crimes are not only prosecuted but prevented. This brings into focus the specific advantages that such legislation could offer in recognising and addressing honour crimes as a distinct and systemic form of violence.
2. Advantages of Specific Legislation
A dedicated law addressing so- called honour crimes would fill critical gaps in the current legal framework by recognising these acts as a unique and systemic form of violence. The foremost benefit of such a law would be the formal definition of so- called honour crimes, encompassing acts like murder, assault, acid attacks, forced marriages, and kidnappings committed to upholding perceived familial or community honour. This clarity would ensure consistent application of the law and make it easier to investigate and prosecute these crimes effectively.
Enhanced penalties could also act as a stronger deterrent. For instance, the introduction of stricter sentences, including life imprisonment or the death penalty in extreme cases, would reflect the severity of such crimes. Furthermore, guidelines for investigating the honour-related motive would strengthen the prosecution’s case, preventing perpetrators from escaping justice by misrepresenting their crimes.
Specific legislation would also address victim and witness protection, a critical gap in the current system. Provisions could include relocation programs, anonymity guarantees, and financial support to ensure witnesses can testify without fear of reprisal. Such protections are especially vital in so- called honour crimes, where the perpetrators often wield significant social and political influence.
Additionally, the law could incorporate preventive measures to address the root causes of so- called honour crimes. Awareness campaigns, community outreach programs, and educational initiatives would challenge the patriarchal and caste-based norms that normalise such violence. For example, the Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) judgment recommended measures to prevent so- called honour crimes, but without statutory backing, these remain advisory at best. A dedicated law would institutionalise these efforts, fostering long-term societal change.
While the case for a dedicated law is clear, the journey to enacting such legislation is fraught with challenges. These obstacles, rooted in political, social, and cultural dynamics, highlight the complex interplay between traditional structures and legislative inertia.
Impediments to Enacting a New Law on honour crimes in India
Political Will and Electoral Politics
The lack of political will to enact a dedicated law against so- called honour crimes reflects the complex interplay of electoral politics and cultural traditions. Honour crimes are most prevalent in regions dominated by traditional rural power structures, particularly in North India, where community-based bodies like khap panchayats wield considerable influence. Politicians are acutely aware of the electoral risks associated with opposing these councils. As rural constituencies often vote en masse, alienating caste-aligned or community-aligned groups can result in significant electoral losses.
For instance, during the 2019 general elections, candidates from Haryana and Rajasthan avoided taking firm stances against so- called honour crimes, fearing backlash from dominant communities. Honour killings, often sanctioned by these councils, are framed as protective measures for family and caste honour. Politicians, instead of confronting such practices, often justify or downplay them. A former Chief Minister of a North Indian state reportedly stated that khap panchayats “uphold traditions“ and should not be interfered with, signalling tacit approval of their actions. Such political manoeuvring ensures the continued relevance of khap panchayats in rural power dynamics and forestalls any meaningful legislative reform.
The lack of political initiative is further compounded by the absence of pressure from urban constituencies. Urban voters, while often vocal in their criticism of regressive practices like so- called honour crimes, typically deprioritise such rural-centric issues during elections. This disconnect stems from the geographical and socio-cultural divide between urban and rural India, where so- called honour crimes are predominantly concentrated. Urban constituencies are more likely to focus on economic policies, urban infrastructure, and national security during electoral cycles, relegating rural-specific issues to the background. This apathy creates a political vacuum, allowing leaders to sidestep the issue without facing significant electoral repercussions. Consequently, so- called honour crimes remain a low-priority agenda item, enabling politicians to cater to rural vote banks and traditional power structures without fear of alienating urban voters. This dynamic perpetuates systemic inertia, leaving so- called honour crimes unaddressed in policy and legislation.
One of the most significant barriers to legal reform lies in the entrenched power of community institutions like khap panchayats. Understanding their role is critical to unraveling the socio-political resistance to addressing honour crimes.
2. The Influence of khap panchayats
Khap panchayats, deeply entrenched in the socio-cultural fabric of rural North India, wield significant influence as informal community councils. These self-styled bodies, primarily composed of elders from dominant caste groups, dictate social norms and impose extrajudicial “punishments” for perceived violations such as inter-caste or same-gotra marriages. Despite lacking any legal or judicial legitimacy, their decrees hold considerable sway within their communities, reflecting the deep societal acceptance of their authority.
The role of khap panchayats in perpetuating so- called honour crimes is twofold, encompassing both structural and intentional dimensions. Structurally, they uphold and enforce caste purity and patriarchal dominance by opposing inter-caste and intra-gotra unions, embedding their authority within the social fabric of rural communities. Intentionally, they utilise so- called honour crimes as a deliberate tool to reinforce their power, framing such unions as direct affronts to community values and leveraging these narratives to maintain regressive traditional norms.
This dual role is exemplified in the Manoj-Babli case, where the khap not only sanctioned the killings but openly defended them, labelling the marriage as “incestuous” under their interpretation of the gotra system. While the court convicted the perpetrators, the widespread community support for the khap’s stance revealed the judiciary’s limited capacity to challenge entrenched cultural practices. This bifurcation of roles underscores how khap panchayats strategically sustain their influence by intertwining systemic dominance with active intervention against progressive societal shifts.
Efforts to regulate or delegitimise khap panchayats face fierce opposition. Community protests, often backed by caste-based solidarity, stall reforms. Politicians, wary of alienating influential rural constituencies, rarely challenge these councils, further entrenching their role as enablers of so- called honour crimes. This tacit complicity ensures that khap panchayats remain powerful arbiters of tradition, stalling legal and societal progress. The dominance of khap panchayats is closely tied to the broader framework of caste politics in India, where caste hierarchies and power dynamics not only sustain honour crimes but also hinder progressive reforms.
3. Caste Politics and its Interplay
Caste politics forms a foundational impediment to addressing so- called honour crimes through legislation. Caste operates as a rigid social system, dictating boundaries for relationships, marriage, and social mobility. The so- called honour crimes, particularly inter-caste killings, are deeply rooted in the collective anxiety of dominant caste groups to preserve their social hierarchy. These crimes reflect a violent assertion of power aimed at maintaining caste purity, a value central to the socio-political structure in many rural areas.
The political entrenchment of caste exacerbates this issue. Political parties often rely on dominant caste groups for electoral support, rendering them reluctant to back reforms that challenge these hierarchies. Legislators are cautious of alienating these powerful groups, fearing backlash at the ballot box. Consequently, laws targeting so- called honour crimes are often perceived as direct threats to caste-based power structures and are either diluted or outright stalled in legislative processes.
The normalisation of caste-based violence within rural communities further compounds the problem. Honour killings are socially framed as necessary to uphold family honour, silencing dissenting voices and reducing public accountability. This normalisation creates an environment where perpetrators act with impunity, emboldened by societal acceptance and the lack of strong political condemnation.
Caste politics also stymies public discourse, as dominant groups control the narrative around so- called honour crimes. Media and civil society efforts to highlight such issues often face backlash from communities that view these discussions as attacks on their culture. Without targeted strategies to dismantle caste hierarchies and shift political priorities, so- called honour crimes will continue to thrive under the guise of cultural preservation. The systemic underreporting and misclassification of honour crimes further complicate efforts to address these issues. Beyond socio-political barriers, data collection and legal classification present significant challenges to reform.
4. The Problem of Underreporting and False Cases
Accurate documentation of so- called honour crimes in India is significantly hindered by underreporting and misclassification, with families often concealing these acts as accidents or suicides to avoid social ostracism or legal scrutiny. For instance, a 2018 Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2106 addressed the challenges in accurately reporting so- called honour killings, noting that such cases are often registered under general categories like murder, which can obscure the specific motive behind the crime. Additionally, the NCRB has faced difficulties in collecting precise data on so- called honour crimes due to the lack of a distinct legal classification, leading to potential underestimation in official statistics. This gap in data obscures the true extent of the problem and impedes effective policymaking.
Compounding this issue is the argument of potential misuse, often raised by opponents of a dedicated law. Critics cite examples from other women-centric legislations, such as the Dowry Prohibition Act, where alleged misuse has fueled resistance to progressive reforms. However, these concerns, while valid, are frequently exaggerated and serve to delay legislative action. Addressing this dual challenge requires not only robust legal safeguards to prevent misuse but also systematic efforts to formalise data collection through a clear legal framework. Only then can the scale of so- called honour crimes be accurately measured and effectively addressed. The lack of accurate data and societal acknowledgment of honour crimes underscores a deeper issue: the limited awareness and urgency among lawmakers, which hampers effective legislative action.
5. Lack of Awareness and Understanding Among Lawmakers
The failure to enact a dedicated law against so- called honour crimes stems not only from political hesitation but also from a fundamental lack of awareness and urgency among lawmakers. The so- called honour crimes are often viewed as isolated incidents rather than systemic manifestations of deeply ingrained cultural norms. This narrow understanding has led to fragmented and inadequate legislative responses that fail to address the scale and complexity of the issue.
In 2010, Brinda Karat called for comprehensive legislation to address so- called honour killings, criticising the government’s decision to defer the matter to a Group of Ministers (GoM). This delay reflected the influence of vote bank politics, as lawmakers prioritised electoral considerations over the urgency of addressing so- called honour crimes.
Rajasthan introduced the “Prohibition of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances in the Name of Honour and Tradition Bill, 2019,” proposing stringent punishments for so- called honour killings, including the death penalty in extreme cases. While the bill’s passage in the Rajasthan Assembly marked progress, its effectiveness has been limited by the lack of complementary national legislation and weak enforcement mechanisms. Resistance from local power structures, including khap panchayats, and a lack of societal awareness about the law have further hindered its impact.
YSR Congress Party MP V. Vijayasai Reddy introduced a private member’s bill in the Rajya Sabha to criminalise so- called honour killings and protect individuals’ right to choose their life partners. Despite its progressive vision, the bill failed to gain traction in Parliament, reflecting the broader challenges faced by private initiatives without government backing. This failure underlines how the lack of institutional support and political endorsement can render legislative efforts ineffective, especially on contentious issues like so- called honour crimes.
The Dalit Human Rights Defender Network proposed a draft bill targeting so- called honour killings, focusing on intersectional violence against marginalised communities. However, like previous attempts, this initiative struggled to gain political attention, emphasising the systemic indifference of lawmakers towards comprehensive reforms addressing caste and gender-based violence.
These repeated failures to pass specific legislation are symptomatic of deeper structural issues within India’s legislative process. First, so- called honour crimes are often dismissed as regional or cultural issues, sidelined in favour of broader national concerns. Lawmakers, particularly those representing rural constituencies, are reluctant to alienate influential community bodies like khap panchayats, which are often seen as custodians of tradition. This political reluctance reflects profound disconnect between lawmakers and the lived realities of rural communities where so- called honour crimes are prevalent. By prioritising electoral alliances and traditional power structures, legislators perpetuate a status quo that allows so- called honour crimes to persist unchecked.
Second, the fragmented and localised nature of legislative attempts highlights the absence of a cohesive national framework. Efforts like Rajasthan’s Prohibition Bill, while commendable, lack the broader enforcement mechanisms and institutional backing that a national law could provide. The so- called honour crimes are not confined to specific states; they are a systemic issue that requires a unified legal response. The failure to create a comprehensive framework reflects a lack of understanding among lawmakers of the interconnected social, cultural, and political dimensions of so- called honour crimes.
Third, the lack of follow-through on judicial directives, such as those in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), further underscores the gap in legislative action. These judgments emphasised the constitutional rights to personal liberty and choice, urging the state to act against so- called honour killings. Yet, the absence of enabling legislation highlights lawmakers’ failure to translate judicial insights into actionable policies. This inertia perpetuates a cycle where judicial interventions remain aspirational, with little tangible impact on the ground.
Lastly, societal resistance and the normalisation of honour-based violence compound the legislative challenges. The so- called honour crimes are deeply rooted in patriarchal norms and caste hierarchies, which are often defended under the guise of tradition. Lawmakers, particularly those from rural constituencies, may themselves internalise these norms, further limiting their ability to perceive so- called honour crimes as systemic violence rather than isolated acts. This internalisation reflects a broader cultural reluctance to confront deeply ingrained social practices, which lawmakers often mirror.
In sum, the lack of awareness and understanding among lawmakers is both a cause and consequence of the systemic inertia surrounding so- called honour crimes. The failure of legislative attempts, whether due to political reluctance, societal resistance, or fragmented efforts, underscores the need for a paradigm shift in how so- called honour crimes are understood and addressed. Lawmakers must move beyond tokenistic measures and engage with the cultural and structural dimensions of so- called honour crimes, prioritising human rights over traditional allegiances and electoral gains. Without this shift, legislative inertia will continue to leave victims of so- called honour crimes vulnerable, and justice elusive.
While a dedicated law is essential, its success depends on a multi-faceted approach that integrates legislative action with societal and institutional reforms.
Recommendations and Way Forward
To effectively combat so- called honour crimes, India must adopt a multi-pronged approach that addresses legislative, social, and institutional gaps. The enactment of a comprehensive, gender-neutral law is imperative. Such legislation should formally define so- called honour crimes and establish stringent punitive measures, including fast-track courts and robust victim and witness protection mechanisms. By institutionalising clear guidelines for proving the “honour” motive, the law would not only ensure consistent prosecution but also signal the state’s unequivocal commitment to eradicating honour-based violence.
In addition to legislative reforms, targeted awareness campaigns are essential to challenge the cultural normalisation of so- called honour crimes. These initiatives should focus on educating communities about the detrimental social impact of such violence and the legal protections available to victims. Collaboration with grassroots organisations and leveraging digital platforms can amplify the reach of these efforts, fostering cultural shifts that undermine the acceptance of so- called honour crimes.
Institutional reforms must also include specialised training for law enforcement agencies. Officers must be equipped to recognise honour motives, gather evidence effectively in hostile environments, and safeguard victims and witnesses from intimidation. Such measures would build trust in the legal system while enhancing accountability and justice delivery.Ultimately, these strategies must transcend punitive measures to address the systemic roots of so-called honour crimes. By formalising these acts as distinct offences, empowering judicial processes, and providing robust victim protections, a comprehensive law would serve not only as a tool for justice but also as a transformative framework that repositions honour crimes within the broader discourse on human rights and social justice.
India’s journey towards combating so-called honour crimes is not merely a legislative challenge but a societal one. Addressing these crimes requires the confluence of legislative action, cultural awareness, and political will. Only by dismantling the societal structures that normalise such violence can the nation pave the way for genuine reform, a society where individual freedoms transcend the shackles of tradition and constitutional rights triumph over regressive norms.
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.
