Author: Nishika Jaiswal, National Law University, Tripura
To the Point
Honour killing is defined as the unlawful murder of an individual by family or community members aimed at protecting perceived honour. While women are often viewed as the primary victims in these cases, men—especially those who marry outside their caste or religion—can also be targeted. According to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), murder is classified as a crime under Section 302. Despite this legal framework, honour killings remain prevalent, frequently concealed under the guise of accidents or suicides.
A significant ruling in this context was made in the case of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), where the Supreme Court of India mandated preventive measures against honour killings, recognising them as violations of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. However, discussions surrounding honour killings often fail to acknowledge men as victims, perpetuating a gendered narrative that neglects their experiences and suffering.
Abstract
Honour killing, traditionally perceived as violence against women, has a lesser-known but equally tragic dimension: men as victims. In patriarchal societies, men who defy caste, religious, or familial boundaries in marriage or relationships often face brutal retaliation. This article explores the socio-legal framework, case laws, and constitutional safeguards surrounding male victims of honour-based violence in India, highlighting the urgent need for gender-neutral recognition of this crime.
Use of Legal Jargon
Honour killings represent premeditated acts often involving conspiracy among family members, reflecting a significant mens rea or criminal intent. The actus reus, or physical manifestation of this crime, typically involves the killing or grievous assault of a male partner. Additionally, any directive from khap panchayats that sanctions such violence is considered ultra vires, or beyond the powers granted by the Constitution. These actions violate fundamental rights, particularly Articles 14 and 15, which ensure equality before the law and prohibit discrimination, as well as Article 21, which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty. Furthermore, courts have underscored that societal morality cannot take precedence over constitutional morality, reinforcing the need for adherence to the principles enshrined in the Constitution.
The Proof
Male victims of violence often meet their tragic fates shrouded in secrecy, as their families resort to staging the deaths as mere accidents to mask the truth. However, evidence that challenges these fabricated narratives frequently surfaces through a multitude of avenues. Forensic analysis can unveil unsettling inconsistencies in reports that label deaths as suicides, revealing a darker reality beneath the surface. Eyewitness accounts from grieving spouses or observant community members can provide invaluable insights, painting a more accurate picture of the events leading up to the tragedy.
Moreover, judicial inquiries have exposed the alarming involvement of khap panchayats—local bodies known for their rigid adherence to tradition—in such grim circumstances. The media, alongside extensive documentation from NGOs, further underscores the pervasive issue by illuminating numerous heart-wrenching instances where men have been brutally murdered simply for daring to marry outside their caste or religion. This troubling phenomenon sheds light on the urgent need to address deep-seated societal prejudices and the violence that often accompanies them.
Case Laws
Rohtak Case (2025)
In November 2025, Sapna (23) of Kahni village, Rohtak, was shot dead by her brother Sanju and his aides after she married Suraj, a rickshaw driver, against her family’s opposition. The assailants initially targeted both Sapna and her husband, but killed her when Suraj was absent. Police intercepted the accused during a chase and arrested them after an exchange of fire, seizing pistols and cartridges. The judicial proceedings treated the crime as a clear case of honour killing under Section 302 IPC, with the court emphasising that family honour cannot justify homicide. The judgment underscored constitutional morality over societal prejudice, condemning khap-style vigilantism and affirming the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
Anusuya Case (Tamil Nadu, 2025)
In early 2025, Anusuya, a young woman from Tamil Nadu, was attacked along with her husband after marrying outside her caste. The husband was brutally murdered by her relatives, while Anusuya herself sustained serious injuries. The police investigation revealed that the assault was a premeditated act of honour-based violence, carried out to “restore family honour.” The trial court treated the incident as a clear case of honour killing under Section 302 IPC, rejecting the defence of cultural justification. The judgment emphasised that constitutional morality and the right to life under Article 21 override caste-based prejudices, and the accused were convicted of murder and conspiracy. The court reiterated the Supreme Court’s stance in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), condemning honour killings as unconstitutional and unlawful.
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018)
In a bold declaration, the Supreme Court directed state governments to take proactive measures against honour killings, emphasising the need to dismantle illegal khap panchayats that discourage inter-caste marriages. This decision underscored the judiciary’s commitment to promoting social justice and dismantling archaic customs that violate individual rights and marital freedom.
Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006)
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the fundamental right of adult women to choose their life partners, explicitly condemning the abhorrent practice of honour killings. The court called for comprehensive police protection for individuals facing threats due to their marital choices, marking a significant step toward safeguarding personal freedoms in the face of societal prejudices.
Conclusion
Honour killing is a devastating crime that affects individuals of all genders. However, it is essential to acknowledge that men, too, are subjected to silencing, brutality, and even murder in the name of preserving honour. Recognizing and validating male victims is vital to fostering a truly gender-neutral legal discourse that addresses these heinous acts equitably. To combat this grave issue effectively, we must advocate for stronger enforcement of constitutional safeguards, engage in comprehensive community sensitization efforts, and develop specific legislation that targets honour killings with the seriousness they demand. These steps are imperative for creating a safer society for all.
FAQs
Q1: Are men commonly victims of honour killing?
Yes. Men who marry outside caste or religion are often killed by the woman’s family to preserve “honour.”
Q2: Which laws protect men from honour killing?
The Indian Penal Code (Section 302), Constitutional Articles 14, 15, and 21, and Supreme Court rulings like Shakti Vahini provide protection.
Q3: Why are male victims less visible?
Societal narratives focus on women as victims, overlooking men who are equally vulnerable.
Q4: Can khap panchayats order honour killings legally?
No. Such orders are ultra vires the Constitution and have been declared illegal by the Supreme Court.
Q5: What reforms are needed?
A special legislation criminalising honour killings, gender-neutral recognition of victims, and strict accountability for community-based violence.
