Khap panchayats can’t stall marriage between consenting adults: Supreme Court

• As per the Supreme Court's ruling, no third party will be allowed to interfere in marriages.
• Khap panchayats are unelected (usually all-male) community councils in villages, primarily in the Jat-heavy states of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana.
  
• The ruling was based on a petition filed in 2010 by Shakti Vahini, an NGO, to put an end to honour killings.

In a welcome move, a Supreme court bench led by Dipak Misra, the Chief Justice of India, declared on March 27th that a Khap panchayat did not have any power to block a marriage between two consenting adults and that any attempts to do so were “absolutely illegal”. The ruling will be backed by punitive measures and legislation.

Khap panchayats are unelected (usually all-male) community councils in villages, primarily in the Jat-heavy states of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. While Gram (village) panchayats are allowed to act as “self-governing bodies” under Article 40 of India’s Constitution and resolve disputes, panchayats based on “khap” or clan don’t have a constitutional basis. However, these quasi-judicial councils have been acting like the moral arbiters in villages long before the Constitution was drafted.

Not only do they interfere in marriages between people from different castes and religions, but they have also been responsible for ordering honour killings. A prime example is the double murder in 2007 of the newly-wedded Manoj and Babli Banwala in Haryana’s Kaithal district. Manoj and Babli were said to belong to the same gotra, or Hindu clan. This went against the khap panchayat’s governing concept of “bhaichara”, wherein people of the same clan are considered siblings.

In 2010, Shakti Vahini, a human rights NGO, filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking to prevent such extra-judicial killings and curb the authority of the councils that ordered them. The Supreme Court’s ruling today was based on this petition. Under the law, no third party will be allowed to interfere in marriages.

The Supreme Court’s order preventing the khap panchayats’ interference in marriages is a step in the right direction. But it needs to be backed by further checks on the power of these councils. While their role as arbitrators of disputes such as those involving property or loans can’t be undermined, their dated traditions and patriarchal beliefs render them impediments to India’s social progress rather than its enablers.

For example, in response to the court’s tough stance on the marriage issue in February, a number of khap leaders proposed an outright ban on the births of female children. In 2015, a khap panchayat in Haryana’s Yamunagar district punished an alleged rapist with only five slaps with a shoe. In 2012, a khap panchayat leader in Haryana’s Jind district attributed the rising number of rape incidents to the consumption of chowmein. The statement came a week after another khap leader suggested lowering the legal marriage age for women from 18 to 16 so as to prevent rapes.

As this is India, curbing the powers of a regressive vote-bank is an ill-advised political move, especially when the parties in question are enforcers of Hindu traditions. Local politicians and policemen are complicit in supporting the decision-making powers of these bodies.

However, in order to rule, a council needs people to rule over. As more Indians migrate to cities and become less conscious of caste, one hopes that the authority of these councils will eventually wane.