WWW.LIVELAW.

IN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.231 OF 2010

IN THE MATTER OF:

SHAKTI VAHINI …PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

SUGGESTIONS OF THE AMICI CURIAE

1. A “Khap Panchayat” shall [for the purpose of the present note] refer to

any person or group of persons who have gathered, assembled or

congregated at any time, with the view or intention of condemning any

marriage, including a proposed marriage, not prohibited by law, on the

basis that such marriage has dishonoured the caste or community

tradition or brought disrepute to all or any of the persons forming part

of the assembly or the family or the people of the locality concerned.1

2. The present note contains some suggestions which may be considered

by this Hon’ble Court [till appropriate legislation is put in place] with a

view to address the problem of honour killings which take place

perhaps at the instance, instigation or encouragement of some khap

panchayats.

1
This definition has been taken from THE PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF
MATRIMONIAL ALLIANCES BILL- Annexure Ito the 242nd Law Commission Report dated 22.08.2012
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
3. PREVENTIVE STEPS:

a) If any police officer or any officer of the district administration

gets information about any “proposed” gathering of a Khap

Panchayat [as mentioned in paragraph 1 above], it will be his

duty to immediately inform his superior officers and the matter

must be brought to the notice of the Dy. Superintendent of

Police in-charge of the area and Superintendent of Police of the

district. Thereupon, it would be the duty of the Dy.

Superintendent of Police (or such senior police officer as

identified by the State Government with respect to the area/

district) to meet with the members of the Khap Panchayat and

reason with them that such a meeting/ gathering may not be held

as it would be an illegal gathering. It should be impressed upon

them that if any decision is taken, which would in any manner

result in harm to the couple or the family members of the

couple, the police would be duty bound to register an FIR

against the members of Khap Panchayat interalia under

Sections 141 r/w 143 and 503 r/w 506 IPC.

b) If the members of Khap Panchayat persist in holding a meeting

and the senior police officer has reason to believe that such a

gathering may cause reasonable apprehension of harm to the

couple or their family, the District Magistrate/Sub Divisional

Magistrate of the district/ area would be duty bound to take

preventive steps under the Cr.P.C., including invoking Section

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
144 Cr.P.C. either on the request of the senior police officer(s)

or suo moto.

c) In case it appears to the senior police officer that the assembly

of a khap panchayat cannot be otherwise prevented, and further

the said police officer has reason to believe that the said

assembly is likely to take some decision which may result in

harm to couple and/or their families, the power to arrest under

Section 151 Cr.P.C. may be invoked.

4. REMEDIAL STEPS:

a) It would be the duty of the Superintendent of Police and the

District Magistrate of the district to ensure the safety of the

couple of an inter caste/inter religious [or any other marriage

being opposed by the local community/khap] if (a) the couple

approaches a police officer or any officer of the district

administration, or (b) if any police officer or an officer of the

district administration has come to know that the marriage is

being opposed by so called community leaders or members of

Khap panchayat. The State Government would lay down

adequate guidelines for the steps to be taken to protect the

couple and family members, within a fixed time frame. Till such

guidelines are framed, the police/ district administration would

have to take steps to provide a safe house to the couple and/or

police protection to the couple/ family.

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
b) The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Manmeet Singh v. State

of Haryana2 has laid down comprehensive guidelines in this

regard. Most of these directions have been adopted by the

Madras High Court in B Dilipkumar v. The Secretary to

Government, Department of Home, Government of Tamil Nadu

& Ors3 pertaining to Katta Panchayats. In Manmeet Singh

(supra) a citizen group called “Friends of people” has been

contemplated. The State Government may create such groups

after consultation with high ranking officials of the

jurisdictional police, recognized NGOs and other such persons

as advised. Once such “friends of people” has been created, they

would be attached with the local police station in whose

jurisdiction Khap activities have been observed or are

apprehended. It would be open to the Superintendent of Police/

District Magistrate to take the assistance of “friends of people”,

to attempt reconciliation between the couple and their parents as

well as the local khap. However, any step towards reconciliation

should be taken only once it is ascertained that the couple is out

of harm’s way and is voluntarily consenting to reconciliation.

Copy of judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in Manmeet Singh v. State of Haryana [CWP

No.26734 of 2014 dated 23.02.2015] is annexed as Annexure-1.

Copy of judgment of High Court of Madras in B. Dilipkumar v.

2
2015(2)RCR(Criminal)167
3
2016(2)Crimes158(Mad.)
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu [WP

No.26991 of 2014 dated 13.04.2016] is annexed as Annexure-2.

c) The State Government should try to ensure that such groups are

heterogeneous in composition and comprise of progressive

thinking residents of the village/ group of villages. It would be

noteworthy to refer to the directions of this Court in Rajesh

Sharma Vs State of Uttar Pradesh4 dated 27.07.2017 wherein

creation of a Family Welfare Committee was directed. The State

Government may, while creating such groups, also take note of

the suggestion made by this Court in para 19(i)(b) of the said

judgment. For ease of reference, relevant portion has been

extracted below:

“19. Thus, after careful consideration of the whole issue, we

consider it fit to issue the following directions:-
i) (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare
Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services
Authorities preferably comprising of three members.
The constitution and working of such committees may be
reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by
the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also
the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.

(b) The Committees may be constituted out of para

legal volunteers/ social workers/ retired persons/ wives of
working officers/ other citizens who may be found
suitable and willing.

4
2017(8)SCALE313
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
(c) The Committee members will not be called as
witnesses.”

5. PUNITIVE STEPS:

a) As and when it comes to the notice of the SHO/SP/DM [or any

other official incharge of law and order in the area], that any

Khap Panchayat has passed any diktat to take action against a

couple/ family of an inter-caste or inter-religious marriage [or

any other marriage which does not meet their acceptance], the

SHO would be duty bound to immediately lodge an FIR under

appropriate provisions of the Penal Code, including Sections

141, 143 IPC. The SP/Dy. SP should ensure that the local police

station carries out quick and effective investigation of such

cases, so that action of convening an unlawful assembly and

passing illegal diktats do not go unpunished.

b) In case any substantive offence is committed against a couple/

family, it would be the duty of the investigating officer to

conduct detailed investigation not only to apprehend the actual

perpetrators of the crime, but also to investigate the role of the

Khap Panchayat, if any. Any investigation into the crime against

such a couple/family would necessarily have to look into the

role of the Khap Panchayat, if any. The final report of the police

submitted to the learned Magistrate under Section 173 of

Cr.P.C. would necessarily inform the learned Magistrate that the

police had looked into the role of Khap Panchayat, if any. If

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
there is evidence to suggest that the offence has been committed

as a result of dictates by a Khap Panchayat, the Investigating

Officer of the case would be duty bound to charge sheet the

members of the Khap Panchayat for conspiracy or abetment, as

the case may be.

c) A special investigation team may be constituted in such cases

where it has come to notice that the khap Panchayat has

resolved to take action against a couple or a family or an actual

honour killing has taken place which may be relatable to a diktat

of the khap panchayats. The investigation should be led by an

official of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and

under the direct supervision of Superintendent of Police, which

would ensure that investigation is quick and effective and the

role of the khap is fully investigated.

6. Any failure by either the police/ district officials tasked with the above

duties, to comply with the above directions may be considered as an

act of negligence and/or misconduct for which departmental action

must be taken under the Service Rules. In Arumugam Servai v. State of

Tamil Nadu5, this Hon'ble Court directed penal action for dereliction of

duty against concerned officials, including those at the level of District

Magistrate/ Collector and SSP/SP. This Hon'ble Court directed the

State Government to ensure that erring officers are handed out strict

punishment if it is found that (i) such official(s) did not prevent the

5
(2011) 6 SCC 405
 WWW.LIVELAW.IN
incident, despite having prior knowledge of it, or (ii) where the

incident had already occurred, such official(s) did not promptly

apprehend and institute criminal proceedings against the culprits.

These directions in Arumugam (supra) have also received the

endorsement of the Verma Committee in its 2013 Report on

Amendment to Criminal Law. Copy of relevant part of the Report of

Justice Verma Commission is annexed as Annexure-3.

7. The Government of India may also be directed to take a view on the

desirability of implementation of the 242nd Law Commission Report

dated 22.08.2012 suggesting a special law within a specified time

frame. It has been more than 5 years service the Law Commission had

given its report.

[RAJU RAMACHANDRAN]
SENIOR ADVOCATE

[GAURAV AGRAWAL]
ADVOCATE

NEW DELHI
FILED ON: 15.09.2017