Every time an honour killing makes headlines, public attention immediately turns to one question—who committed the murder? But from a legal perspective, that is the wrong place to begin. The more fundamental question is whether the murder could have been prevented. Honour killings are seldom spontaneous acts of

Every time an honour killing makes headlines, public attention immediately turns to one question—who committed the murder? But from a legal perspective, that is the wrong place to begin. The more fundamental question is whether the murder could have been prevented.
Honour killings are seldom spontaneous acts of violence. They are almost always preceded by a chain of events—surveillance, threats, coercion, confinement, forced separation, intimidation, and organised pressure by family or community members. Yet, in most cases, the criminal justice system comes into motion only after a life has already been lost.
This raises an important legal question. Is India’s existing legal framework sufficient to deal with honour and caste-based killings, or does Tamil Nadu require a dedicated law to prevent these crimes before they culminate in murder?
Before we proceed, it is pertinent to note that the discussion in this video is based on a research paper titled “Caste and Honour Killing in Tamil Nadu: Legal Framework, Landmark Judgements and Reform Measures.” The paper was presented before the Commission headed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. N. Basha (Retd.) by Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, Senior Advocate, and Ms. Ananya Sivanandaraaj. The paper undertakes a comprehensive examination of the constitutional and statutory framework governing honour and caste-based killings, analyses the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court and the Madras High Court, identifies the deficiencies in the existing legal regime, and proposes a comprehensive legislative framework for the State of Tamil Nadu.
At the outset, it is important to understand that honour killings and caste-based killings are not identical, although they frequently overlap.
An honour killing generally arises when an individual exercises autonomy in matters of intimate relationships—choosing a life partner, entering an inter-caste or inter-religious relationship, refusing an arranged marriage, or making decisions that are perceived to have brought disrepute to the family.
Caste-based killings, however, are broader. They include violence committed because a person asserted dignity, challenged caste hierarchy, entered public spaces on equal terms, sought social mobility, or resisted caste oppression. Such violence may have nothing to do with marriage or relationships.
In Tamil Nadu, these two forms of violence often intersect. The language used may be one of family honour, but the underlying objective is frequently the preservation of caste hierarchy. In other words, honour becomes the justification, while caste remains the real structure behind the violence.
The Constitution of India leaves no ambiguity on this issue.
Article 14 guarantees equality before the law.
Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste.
Article 17 abolishes untouchability and rejects caste hierarchy.
Articles 19 and 21 together recognise liberty, movement, association, privacy, dignity, and decisional autonomy—including the freedom of every competent adult to choose a life partner.
Constitutionally, therefore, there is no uncertainty. An adult has the unquestionable right to choose whom to marry or with whom to live. No family, caste body, or community organisation possesses any legal authority to interfere with that decision.
The problem, therefore, is not the absence of constitutional rights.
The problem lies in the absence of statutory machinery capable of protecting those rights before violence occurs.
This brings us to the existing criminal law.
Today, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita contains provisions relating to murder, criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, abduction, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, unlawful assembly, and destruction of evidence.
Each of these offences can certainly be invoked in an honour killing case.
However, the law treats these offences independently.
It punishes murder as murder.
Confinement as confinement.
Threats as intimidation.
Conspiracy as conspiracy.
What it does not recognise is that these acts frequently form part of a single escalating pattern of honour-based violence.
A couple is first threatened.
Their phones are confiscated.
They are traced by relatives.
Family meetings are convened.
Community leaders intervene.
Police complaints are ignored.
Only thereafter does the murder occur.
By the time the offence of murder is committed, every warning sign has already been displayed.
Existing criminal law punishes the final act but provides no dedicated statutory mechanism that obligates the State to intervene during this continuum of coercion.
That, according to this research, is the principal legislative gap.
One may ask whether the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act already addresses this issue.
The answer is that it addresses many situations, but not all.
The Act is one of the strongest legislations available against caste-based atrocities. It provides enhanced punishment, Special Courts, witness protection, rehabilitation, and accountability for public servants.
However, its application depends upon statutory requirements being satisfied.
Certain honour killings may involve dominant-caste women who are murdered by their own families for choosing partners from Scheduled Castes.
The caste motive is evident.
Yet the statutory framework may not fully capture every such situation because of the identity thresholds built into the legislation.
The research therefore argues that while the SC/ST Act must continue to operate wherever applicable, it cannot, by itself, address every manifestation of honour and caste violence.
Another important legislation is the Special Marriage Act.
The Special Marriage Act recognises the right of adults to marry irrespective of caste or religion.
However, recognition of marriage is not the same as protection of autonomy.
The law validates the marriage.
It does not necessarily protect the couple from threats during the period leading up to the marriage or immediately thereafter.
The gap, therefore, lies not in recognising the right, but in protecting those who exercise it.
The Supreme Court of India has consistently affirmed these constitutional principles.
In Lata Singh, the Court declared that every adult is free to marry any person of his or her choice, including through inter-caste marriage.
In Shafin Jahan, the Court held that choosing a life partner forms part of personal liberty protected under Article 21.
In Laxmibai Chandaragi, the Supreme Court made it clear that the police cannot become instruments through which disapproving families recover or pressure adult women who have voluntarily left their parental homes.
Perhaps the most significant decision is Shakti Vahini v. Union of India.
Recognising that honour killings are rarely sudden, the Supreme Court directed States to establish preventive mechanisms.
These included district-level special cells, twenty-four-hour helplines, safe houses, immediate police protection, preventive action against unlawful assemblies, and disciplinary action against officials who fail to respond to credible threats.
The Court recognised an important principle.
The State’s responsibility begins not after a murder, but when the threat first becomes known.
The research argues that these judicial directions should now be incorporated into legislation.
Judicial guidelines, while binding, depend upon implementation.
A dedicated statute would transform these guidelines into enforceable statutory duties applicable uniformly throughout the State.
Accordingly, the paper proposes a comprehensive legislative framework specifically designed for Tamil Nadu.
Such a statute would clearly define honour-based violence and caste-based violence.
It would criminalise coercive family or caste assemblies convened to threaten or punish adults exercising constitutional choice.
It would recognise surveillance, intimidation, forced separation, social boycott, and organised coercion as legally significant pre-violence incidents.
It would establish mandatory threat assessment protocols for the police.
It would require immediate protection wherever credible danger exists.
It would provide safe houses, witness protection, rehabilitation, compensation, and specialised investigation.
Importantly, it would also impose accountability upon public officials who fail to act despite prior knowledge of imminent danger.
Equally significant is what the proposed law does not seek to do.
It does not advocate indiscriminate prosecution of entire families or communities.
Criminal liability would remain individualised.
Only those against whom there exists evidence of participation, conspiracy, abetment, instigation, intimidation, unlawful assembly, or other recognised criminal conduct would be prosecuted.
The proposed legislation therefore seeks to strike a careful balance.
It strengthens prevention while preserving the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Ultimately, the central argument of this research is both simple and compelling.
India does not lack constitutional values.
It does not lack offences relating to murder, conspiracy, kidnapping, or intimidation.
What it lacks is a coherent statutory framework capable of recognising honour and caste-based violence as an organised process rather than merely a completed homicide.
If constitutional liberty is to have real meaning, the law cannot wait until after the funeral.
It must intervene when the first threat is made, when the first complaint is filed, and when the first signs of organised coercion emerge.
Only then can the Constitution’s promise of equality, dignity, liberty, and autonomy become a lived reality rather than a promise that arrives too late.
It is in this backdrop that Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, Senior Advocate, and Ms. Ananya Sivanandaraaj have not merely identified the deficiencies in the existing legal framework but have also sought to provide a legislative solution. Along with the research paper, they have presented a comprehensive Draft Bill before the Hon’ble Commission headed by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. N. Basha (Retd.) for its consideration, with a view to establishing a dedicated statutory framework for the prevention, investigation and prosecution of honour-based and caste-based violence in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The proposed legislation seeks to translate constitutional guarantees into an effective statutory framework—one that not only punishes offenders after the commission of the crime but, more importantly, seeks to prevent such crimes before lives are lost.