In the Name of “Honour”

**Alok Singh

Despite the right to choose one’s partner being a guaranteed constitutional right, the Indian legal system still fails to recognise honour killings as a separate category of crime. 

We hear many stories around us regarding the murder of a person because they dared to fall in love across the caste, religion or gender norms set by society. These stories are not rare, but unfortunately are very common. Existing statutes (BNS, BNSS, SC/ST Atrocities Act, etc.) are unsuitable for such crimes, and this is compounded by weak enforcement. Recent data and incidents show that such crimes continue, prompting urgent calls for reform.

Constitutional Liberties and the Right to Choose a Partner

India’s Constitution guarantees every individual the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and every citizen the freedoms of speech, expression, and association under Article 19. The Supreme Court has interpreted these broadly to include the right to marry a person of one’s choice. For example, in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., the Court emphatically held that “once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes,” and that any threats or violence by parents or community against a consensual inter-caste or inter-religious marriage are “wholly illegal”. This case and others recognised that forcing an adult into a marriage or harming them for their marriage choice violates their fundamental rights. In Lata Singh, the Court condemned honour killings as an “outrage on humanity” and directed police to protect couples from harassment. 

More recently, in Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2022), the Court stressed that the choice of a woman’s partner is a legitimate constitutional right under Article 19 and a group of persons in the name of “class honour” can’t curtail such right. In other words, the freedom of association and privacy protects an individual’s autonomy to select a spouse.

In Arumugam Servai vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court strongly deprecated the practice of khap panchayats. Further, in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), it reaffirmed that family or community consent is not required for two adults to marry, and declared that khap councils have no legal authority to block such marriages. The Supreme Court warned that any interference by self-styled “honour” councils must be treated as criminal intimidation or unlawful assembly. It also directed fast-track investigations, safe houses for threatened couples, and special cells to ensure prompt action. The Court emphasised that the State must proactively protect inter-caste/inter-faith couples.

Thus, the constitutional law is clear, i.e., consenting adults have the freedom to marry by choice under Articles 21 and 19, and this choice cannot be curtailed by caste, religion, or notions of “honour”. 

Honour Crimes in Contemporary India

Despite these rulings, implementation gaps persist. Courts repeatedly observe that honour killings are barbaric acts rooted in caste patriarchy, yet they have limited power to enforce new laws. In Shakti Vahini, for example, the Court actually recommended that the legislature enact a dedicated law against honour crimes, but no such national law exists. Instead, “honour killings” are prosecuted under general statutes, leading to a patchwork approach that fails to address the specific social motive and often leads to impunity.

Reliable nationwide data on honour killings is scarce, showing both underreporting and definitional issues. Officially, the NCRB only began tracking “honour killings” as a motive for murder in 2014. Even then, numbers are low. The first annual count (2014) listed just 18 cases nationwide. More recent crime records, obtained via parliamentary answers, show 25 cases in 2020, 33 in 2021, and 18 in 2022. These official figures (for murder cases explicitly tagged as “honour”) are undoubtedly underestimates. They exclude many incidents recorded under general murder or culpable homicide without noting the motive. 

According to the Home Ministry, in 2022, about 145 honour-killing incidents occurred in 2017–2019. However, one Tamil Nadu NGO counted 195 cases in that state alone over five years. This stark gap indicates many murders with an honour motive either go unclassified or unpunished.

There have been some such incidents that have happened recently that were reported, either from UP or Punjab.  The brutal murder by one’s own family or community not only affects an individual but also threatens the whole section of society that wants to marry or make a relationship outside the social norms, though it is legal to do so. The State’s response is often sluggish, with delayed FIRs and weak investigations, further aggravating the problem. 

Statistics from the NCRB and civil-society reports show certain states are hotspots. In 2025, the Supreme Court order observed that at the root of one Kerala-Tamil Nadu inter-caste murder was “the deeply entrenched hierarchical caste system”, and said honour murders “must get a strong measure of punishment”. This shows how these crimes stem from casteism and social pressure.

Honour Without Justice: Legal Invisibility of Social Motives

Not a single law exists at the national level to prevent and punish honour killings. Instead, perpetrators are prosecuted under general criminal statutes. Currently, all the cases are covered under the category of murder, attempt to murder, abetment, conspiracy, and criminal intimidation. If victims are kidnapped for forced into marriage, they may fall into another category, such as kidnapping for marriage. However, none of these categories recognises honour as a motive; they treat honour killings the same as any murder. 

In practice, this means a killer’s casteist or homophobic intent is often obscured, and punishment may be lighter. In criminal jurisprudence, the motive behind the crime is a crucial factor in the determination of punishment. Therefore, treating both honour killing and general killing as the same crime is not legally tenable. The homicide with such a motive is also against the right against discrimination, since it indirectly supports the concept of casteism and purity. 

Moreover, while honour killing is primarily related to caste and inter-faith relationships, it also increasingly targets queer individuals whose relationships are perceived as bringing “shame” to families. Although the Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v UOI expanded the ambit of Article 21 to include dignity, autonomy and identity and decriminalised same-sex relationships. Due to the threats, forced confinement, and even honour-based violence, these constitutional guarantees often remain symbolic. Therefore, it is important to ensure that legal responses account for homophobia and transphobia as potential motives under the motive of protecting ‘honour’.

Partial Protection: Where Some Are Protected, Most Are Not

We have some specialised laws that offer partial and limited coverage. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, can apply when a Dalit or Adivasi person is attacked due to caste prejudice. For example, in a 2003 case of the killing of a Dalit-Vanniyar couple, the court later convicted the police for violating the SC/ST Act by failing to file an FIR.  However, if neither the victim nor the offender belongs to an SC/ST community, the Act is irrelevant. Further, the Act does not explicitly mention honour killing.

Some other laws, like the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, may catch cases where one spouse was a minor. That Act criminalizes solemnisation of a child marriage and those who facilitate it. In a few honour-killing cases, the male perpetrator falsely “married” the girl (to disguise the crime as adultery by a married man), and courts have denied him that loophole under the Child Marriage Act. However, many honour killings involve consenting adults over 18, placing them outside this statute. 

The Dowry Prohibition Act and IPC Section 498A (cruelty to married women) are sometimes invoked if a marriage had taken place, but they address domestic cruelty, not premarital relations or consensual marriage. 

Implementation Failures and State Apathy

The Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS) contains measures for police action such as FIR registration, investigation, witness protection, etc., but their enforcement is uneven. Courts have pointed out police lapses in honour-crime cases, such as failing to file FIRs promptly and slow investigations. Since the guidelines of the Shakti Vahini case are not laws in themselves, implementation varies by state.

Since no national law was enacted, state governments have taken modest steps. Rajasthan was the first (as of 2025) and the only state to pass an “honour crime” bill. In 2019, Rajasthan Legislative Assembly passed the Prohibition of Interference with Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances in the Name of Honour and Tradition Bill. This Bill declares that arranging unlawful assemblies (e.g. khap panchayats) to stop a marriage, or harassing a couple, is an offence. Notably, it prescribes death or life imprisonment if a marriage subject to such interference results in a death. Further, the Rajasthan law even empowers district officials to prevent assemblies and protect couples. However, this has geographical limitations for its enforcement, as it would apply only to the state of Rajasthan. 

The Legislative Vacuum: What Parliament Left Unfinished

At the national level, the Law Commission grappled with this issue. Its 242nd Report (2012) recommended a draft Bill titled “Prohibition of Unlawful Assembly (Interference with Matrimonial Alliances)”, seeking to criminalise kangaroo court interference. The government even drafted a similar bill (sometimes called the “Prevention of Interference with Matrimonial Alliances” bill). However, this was never passed in Parliament. 

Notably, the law commission stated that there was “no need” to add an offence of honour killing to Section 300 IPC, since existing murder laws were adequate. They opined that the addition of such a clause may create avoidable confusion and interpretational difficulties. Thus, the policy stalled due to conflicting opinions on whether a special offence is needed.

In sum, the legal gaps remain stark. If a young couple is targeted by their family and community, Indian law has no specific protection or offence. The perpetrators are charged under generic laws like murder, but the underlying motive, social “dishonour”, gets ignored. The only real “legal” consensus is judicial denunciation as the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that honour killings are an anathema to the Constitution. Yet, decades of discussion have produced no dedicated law that specifically targets honour crimes.

Comparative Outlook on Honour Crimes 

On a comparison with other countries, we find policy gaps in India. Pakistan made a landmark move in 2016, when their Parliament unanimously passed amendments to the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure to remove the heir’s “forgiveness” loophole. Earlier, Pakistani law allowed a family to pardon an honour killing, letting killers off scot-free. The new law mandates life imprisonment (even if a pardon is granted). Pakistani judges have since enforced this strictly, spurred by public outrage over high-profile cases. 

Article 82(k) of Penal Code prohibits aggravated homicide, which includes killings in the name of “custom”. But it doesn’t explicitly address the issue of ‘honour killing’ and causes some confusion, i.e. it excludes other honour killings from this definition and applies only to a certain group that follows any such custom. Additionally, the term “custom” ignores the widespread discrimination against women that drives killings in the name of “honour.”

In the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service recognises honour-based violence as a distinct category and has developed specific guidelines and training for frontline professionals. Article 42 of the Istanbul Convention clearly states that culture, custom, or honour can never justify violent crime.

Reform Proposals and Suggestions

Considering the loopholes of existing frameworks, some suggestions are made, including:

• Enact a national law specifically criminalising honour crimes. A draft Freedom of Marriage and Association and Prohibition of Crimes in the Name of Honour Act (2022) has been proposed by NGOs. This draft bill would criminalise intimidation, injury, or conspiracies motivated by honour, and create offences for so-called caste panchayats convening to enforce honour norms. It also enshrines the right of adults to “choose their own partners” free of family consent. Legislators can take up such a bill.

• At minimum, the police must immediately register FIRs for any threat or violence against couples, as courts directed in Shakti Vahini. Police must be held accountable if they ignore such cases. The Supreme Court ordered departmental action against negligent officers, but systemic change is needed, such as specialist cells, witness protection, and monitoring of honour cases.

• The NCRB should publish detailed honour-killing statistics, considering the motive, community, and action taken. Training for police and judiciary is also essential so that honour crimes are correctly identified (and not dismissed as accidents or suicides).

• Like Rajasthan’s law, other states can follow and enact state-level laws. As marriage is covered under the concurrent list, the state governments are also empowered to take action till a nationwide law is made. However, this might cause the issue of uniformity in provisions. 

• Stringent punishment can be given to create deterrence among the perpetrators. 

Conclusion: Love Cannot Be a Crime

Ultimately, real change requires shifting social norms. But till then, the law and policy can help and protect couples caught between between centuries-old prejudices and constitutional rights.  The Founding Fathers of the Constitution envisioned a nation where personal liberty outweighs parochial customs. Honour killings, whether in the name of caste, religion or gender, strike at that vision. Legislative reform, backed by effective implementation, is needed so that no family’s “honour” can override an individual’s fundamental right to life, liberty, and dignity. 

Until India recognises honour killings as a distinct legal crime, the Constitution’s promise remains a hollow shield for those who dare to love.

**Alok Singh is a 2nd-year law student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University, Lucknow.

**Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.