You are on page 1of 17



Khap is a cluster of villages united by caste and geography. It is

as old as 14th century started by upper caste jats to consolidate
their power and position. The main rule is that all boys and girls
within a khap are considered siblings.
Khap panchayat governs the khap formed by same gotra (clan)
families from several neighboring villages. Khap panchayats are
prevalent in Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh and Parts of
Rajasthan. Love marriages are considered taboo in areas
governed by Khap panchayats. Those living in a Khap are not
allowed to marry in the same gotra or even in any gotra from the
same village. Many young couples have been killed in the past
defying khap rules.
Khap panchyat imposes its writ through social boycotts and fines
and in most cases end up either killing or forcing the victims
to commit suicide. All this is done in the name of brotherhood
and its honor. It is due to the inherent weakness of democratically
elected Panchayati Raj institutions, khap panchayats have been
powerful. Even the government has not done much to
control their power.
The 10-15 men who constitute a Khap settle disputes and control
the lives of young people. Many village people also defend these
caste panchayats as they deliver the verdict in one sitting
whereas court cases drag for years. According to them, in many
cases innocent people get harassed in the court and by police.
Here as everyone is known so they cross check everything to
ensure neutrality.
In some Haryana villages, the young girls are routinely
threatened, abused and killed all under Khap verdicts. It is
acceptable for the families to feed pesticide pills to the teenage
girls and then dispose off their bodies by burning them without
any police records. The entire onus of siblinghood rests on the
girl. She is the keeper of village honor. Sometimes rules are
bending for the boys but a girl is never allowed to bend the rules.
If a couple run away then the families risk the boycott and hefty
fines in lakhs of rupees. Even the other women of the house can
suffer abuse.
In keeping with the khap rules, older villages try to keep the
young people apart. Some schools are also forced to have
separate timings for the boys and girls. Fearing their daughters
would go astray, many parents marry them off at an early age.
People have unquestionable faith in the justice of khap. The
question of rights for women does not exist any where in
the territories ruled by Khap panchayats.



In Haryana today, rapid capitalist transformation is accompanied by a

regressive feudal consciousness. As education and political awareness
spread among Dalits, women and backward sections, alongside there
is a massive consolidation of caste (khap) panchayats in defence of the
status quo. The number of cases in which the totally unconstitutional
caste panchayats have openly defied the law of the land by issuing
illegal diktats has increased manifold. Attacks on young couples, Dalits
and progressive-minded people have become frequent.

Though geographically small, Haryana is socially and culturally

heterogeneous. For example, in some areas and among certain castes,
marriages within the village and even intra-gotra marriages are not
uncommon. At the same time, such marriages are treated as incest in
certain other areas, and among other castes. Even the caste or khap
panchayat is not a feature prevalent throughout the State, as many
believe, but is confined to a particular region. Thus, a section of people
of one particular caste proclaims itself as the cultural representative of
Haryana, refusing to acknowledge the customs and traditions practised
by others in their own neighbourhood.

A look at the demography of the State and its development statistics

would help to contextualise the problem. The State that stood second
in per capita income in the country has one of the lowest sex ratios
(821 in the 0-6 age group). Female foeticide is rampant, and the
situation is so bad that wives are being brought from far off States.

“Not once have these panchayats called a maha-panchayat to

pass a resolution against female foeticide or dowry or even in
connection with the crisis in agriculture — problems staring
the people of Haryana in the face.”

After the judgment in the Manoj-Babli case, however, a congregation

of caste panchayats representing the Jat neighbourhoods from
Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan was called at Kurukshetra on
April 13. It was decided that panchayats would now fight for legal
status to legitimately maintain the “social order.” One of the main
agendas of this sarv-khap panchayat was to push for amendments to
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that would ban marriages within the
same gotra (clan within which men and women are considered siblings
and hence cannot marry). Under this Act, marriages between certain
lineages from the paternal and maternal sides are already barred.




Most of the khap panchayat diktats are against couples who are not
from the same gotra. In fact, not more than one case of honour killing
has been of a couple within the same gotra. By creating the false
impression that all marriages of choice between young couples are
incestuous, what the khaps are actually opposing is the “right to
choose a marriage partner”. Among the several instances of khaps
issuing fatwas in Jaundhi, Asanda, Dharana, Singhwal, Hadaudi,
Maham-kheri, Ludana and other villages, not a single one was an intra-
gotra marriage, yet the married couples were declared siblings, and
families made to suffer boycotts and excommunication from their

A sad example of the gotra row is that of Ved Pal Moan, brutally
beaten to death last year when he tried to secure his wife who was
confined by her parents at Singhwal village in Jind district. He was
escorted by a police party and a warrant officer of the High Court. Ved
Pal had married neither within his gotra nor within the same village. In
this case, another absurd code was invoked by the khap: that the
couple violated the custom of not marrying in the neighbouring village
as it forms part of bhaichara (brotherhood). A khap congregation held
in March 2009 publicly pronounced the death sentence for Ved Pal, and
it succeeded in executing it in June. As couples are selectively
targeted, it is clear the real motive is to control women's sexuality to
ensure that property remains within the patriarchal caste domain
(mainly Jats in Haryana).

The sarv khap panchayat also called for social boycott of individuals
who raised their voice against the caste panchayats.



It is not very difficult to locate the Dharana village in Jhajjar district of
Haryana. The road mendors through jowar fields deep into the interiors
of the district and most people helpfully direct visitors to the narrow
paths leading to the village. The reason why all roads lead to Dharana
is the notoriety it had earned following a diktat by its dominant caste
panchayat to a family to leave the village permanently.

House No. 419, where Risal Singh Gehlout, an agriculturist, and his
family reside, is under siege. Around 450 members of the Haryana
Police are stationed in the village to protect the family, and an uneasy
calm prevails. People, including the Police, speak in hushed tones. The
problem began when Risal Singh’s Delhi-based grandson, Ravinder
Gehlout, married Shilpa, a girl of the Kadyan gotra from Panipat

In Dharana, the writ of the Kadyan khap runs. Dharana and the
villages neighboring it, including Doobaldhan, the native village of
Haryana Assembly Speaker Raghuvir Singh Kadian, are dominated
by the people of the Kadyan gotra. Shilpa, being a Kadyan, could only
be a sister to Ravinder, argued kadyan khap representatives. They
added that by marrying her, the Gehlout family had committed one of
the worst transgressions of the “bhaichara” principle of social
organization, even though the gotras were different.

According to the brotherhood principle on which khaps organize

themselves, marriges cannot take place between people of different
castes. Within the same caste, marriages should not take place
between people of the same gotra. Even when the gotras are different,
people living in the same village or adjoining villages cannot marry.
Marriages that fall in the latter two categories are interpreted as
tantamount to “incest” though on account of the general paucity of
girls and the difficulty in finding different gotras within the same caste
group, some flexibility is allowed.

“This is our parampara. The khaps should not be defamed.”

Sarpanch said: “There was an agreement that a Kadyan won’t marry a

Gehlout. Risal Singh’s family violated the pact. If a girl gets married
into our village, she adopts the gotra of her husband and then gets
assimilated. Anyone from her gotra can only have a sibling-like
relationship with the rest of the village; marriage is out of the

“Who can question the RAJA- says Ved Prakash, Ravinder’s uncle and
one of the three sons of Risal Singh, referring to the Kadyan khap
panchayat. The Gehlout family owns a


good amount of fertile land and livestock, and its roots in Dharana go
back several generations.

On July 13, the Kadyan khap began an indefinite protest demanding

the ouster of the family as they had not been annulled. It said
Ravinder’s father, Rohtas Kumar Gehlout, was unacceptable in the
village, though his brothers could continue staying but after paying a
fine of Rs.21000 each to the panchayat.

What was our fault? Ravinder grew up in Delhi with his aunt from
the time he was baby. We had nothing to do with him, said a relative.
Ironically, the couple had no intention of staying in the village as
Ravinder had made Delhi his home several years ago.

The panchayat has taken a wrong decision, says Chanderpati,

Ravinder’s grandmother. Even if the police are there, we do not
venture outside our home. We have not sent the childern away as we
fear someone would attack them when they go to school.

On July 16, the family was given the ultimatum to leave the village in
72hours. On July 19, the day the Gehlouts left, angry villagers
attempted to stone the house, following which clashes erupted
between them and the police. On July 19 itself the Gehlout family filed
an application in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking
directions to the state to give it protection as well as to initiate
immediate action against autocratic individuals for issuing diktats to
end the marriage.

The Gehlout returned the village on July 28 with heavy police




On July 22, 2009, Ved Pal Maun, a 27-year medical practitioner of

Mataur Village in Kaithal district, reached his wife Sonia’s village,
Singhwal, in Jind district. He was accompanied by a warrant officer
appointed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as half a
dozen policemen.

Ved Pal’s wife had been kept captive by her family against her wishes
and he had come to take her. But at her house he was told that Sonia
was not in the house. He began looking for her. Soon, a crowd
gathered, armed with weapons, and pushed its way into the house
and, in the presence of Sonia’s family, the warrant officer and the
police, bludgeoned the young man to death. The warrant officer,
Suraj Bhan, who was injured, said in his complaint to the Narwana
police, Jind, that the crowd would have killed him had the police not
been there. “They killed him in front of my eyes”, Suraj Bhan said in
his complaint.

For several years, Ved Pal had provided medical care for the people of
Singhwal. The trouble started when he fell in love with Sonia, who was
of the Banwala gotra, and the couple, realizing that there would be
opposition to a “choice” marriage, eloped and got married under the
Hindu Marriage Act on April 22, 2009. They were of different
gotras and neither was an inter caste marriage as both were Jats. The
couple did not feel that they had caused any dishonor to their families.

But matter took an ugly turn. Incensed already by the fact that a
couple had dared to marry out of choice and determined to convey a
message to the community, the Banwala khap got together and, at
public meeting, declared a reward for the murder of the couple. After
registering their marriage the couple returned to Ved Pal’s village.
Apprehending danger to their lives from Sonia’s family, the couple filed
an application seeking protection from the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Jind.

On June 22, Sonia’s parents sought the panchayat’s help to request

Ved Pal and his family members to send her home for a few days. Only
two days earlier Sonia had stated in court that she wanted to stay with
her husband. Following the panchayat’s intervention, her parents gave
an undertaking that Ved Pal could take her back any time and there
was no threat to her life from them.

Ten days elapsed and there was no word from his in-laws. When he
went to get his wife back, they refused to hand her over. On July 14,
Sonia sent word through friends that she was being harassed,
physically and mentally, by her family and that there was a threat to
her life. Ved Pal then sought the help of the court again and, along with
the warrant officer and policemen went to bring his wife back.




In the April 2009, Lok Sabha elections, the Congress in Haryana won
nine of the ten seats in the state, and the Chief Minister Bhupinder
Singh Hooda cemented his position as the undisputed leader of the
party and of the Jat community in the state. His son Deepender Singh
Hooda retained the Rohtak seat with over four and a half lakh votes,
consolidating the domination of the Hoodas in this belt. The party also
boasted a young brigade that included, besides the Hooda scion,
Kumari Shelja from Ambala, Ashok Tanwar from Sirsa, Naveen Jindal
from Kurukshetra and Shruti Chowdhary from Bhiwani.

However, despite the overwhelming mandate, the State leadership, the

youth brigade in particular, has maintained an uneasy silence over the
spate of violent incidents, including the murder of young couples and
their families by the khap panchayats. Barring the Left parties and
women’s organizations led by the All India Democratic Women’s
Association (AIDWA), no political outfit has out to condemn these
kangaroo courts.
On July 28, 2009, Brinda Karat, Rajya Sabha member, raised the issue
in Parliament, evoking a response from Union Home Minister P.
Chidambaram. He said he recoiled with shame after reading about the
murders of two teenagers in Meerut, the diktat of a panchayat in
Jhajjar district, and the brutal killing of a young man in Jind district of
Haryana in the presence of a warrant officer.

Although Union Home Minister admitted it as a matter of national

shame but he was completely insensitive to the need for a
special law. At the same time, he left some space for the legal
definition for the honor killing. On one hand Haryana’s Chief Minister,
Bhupinder Singh Hooda says that this is a social tradition, while Union
Home Minister says “we should hand our heads in shame.” In the name
of upholding social tradition, people are being murdered, publicly
lynched and humiliated. Is this all part of our social tradition?

Chidambaram added: “We do not recognize the right of a caste

panchayat to take it upon itself to pronounce whether a man or woman
should live together or whether a woman has committed an act which
allegedly brings dishonor to the family or community.” No caste
panchayat, he said, had the right to pronounce upon the conduct of

However, the government and the Minister were silent on the issue of
initiating legal proceedings or drawing up a policy to deal with such
honor killings.

In the Gehlout’s case, politicians like Raghuvir Singh Kadyan and highly
educated Deepender Singh Hooda, MP from Rohtak, preferred not to
join issue. Hooda waiving off his duty and responsibility said on a
television channel that it was a social issue and should be understood
from the perspective of society.




On October 9, 2007, in an honor killing case involving a Jat Sikh
family in Maharashtra, the Supreme Court upheld the life
imprisonment awarded by the High Court to five persons,
including two women.
Four members of a family were brutally done to death with
traditional weapons at Panvel on the outskirts of Mumbai on
May 30, 1999.
A bench comprising Justices S.B Sinha and Harjit Singh Bedi,
while upholding the sentence, held that the case fell within the
category of “the rarest of rare cases”.
The Bench, however, ruled that it was not inclined to re-impose
the death penalty. A trial court had sentenced the accused to
death but the sentence was commutted to life imprisonment by
the Bombay High Court in 2003.
The Bench opined:
“We are of the opinion that in the peculiar circumstances that we
now face, we are not inclined to reverse the life sentence awarded
by the High Court and re-impose the death penalty on the
accused. We note that the Additional Sessions Judge had rendered
his judgment on December 21, 2001, awarding the death
sentence to four of the accused.”
Rajvinder Kaur fell in love with Ravinder Singh who neither was
economically sound nor was of the same social status as her. The
duo got married despite opposition from the girl’s family. The
boy’s family continued to receive threats from Ravinder’s family.
On May 30, 1999, the girl’s father Baldev Singh, mother Maya
Kaur and three relatives stormed into Rajvinder’s house at Panvel
and attacked the family with traditional weapons. Rajvinder
managed to escape. She was the sole witness to the crime.
The Supreme Court noted:
“The diabolical nature of the crime and the murder of helpless
individuals committed with traditional weapons with extreme
cruelty and premeditation is exacerbated by the fact that Maya
Kaur and Nirmal Kaur had come upstairs and recovered the
jewellery and clothes from Rajvinder Kaur just before the actual
However, the court rejected the appeal of the Maharashtra
government for reviving the death sentence to the male members
on the grounds that they had already undergone eight years of

In the 21-page order, the Bench observed:

“The accused are Jat Sikhs, a proud and aggressive community
that has produced some of India’s most valorous soldiers and
helped fill India’s granaries – unwilling to accept the victims as
equals – and in their garbled perception, inferior in every way and
unsuitable for their daughter.”
Dealing with the issue of honor killing, on July 7, 2006, a two
judge Bench of the Supreme Court expressed concern (in Lata
Singh vs State of U.P & Another [Criminal writ Petition
No.208 of 2004] over the several instances of harassment,
threats and violence against young men and women who marry
outside their caste and held that “such acts of violence or threats
or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them
must be severely punished.”
Observing that “inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national
interest as they will result in destroying the caste system”, the
Bench held that “once a person becomes a major he or she can
marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl
do not approve of such inter caste or inter – religious
marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off
social relations with the son or daughter, but they cannot
give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and
cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste
or inter-religious marriage.”
The Bench directed the administration and the police authorities
throughout the country to ensure “that if any boy or girl who is a
major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a
woman or man is a major, the couple are not harassed by anyone
nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives
such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either
himself or at his instigation is taken to task by instituting criminal
proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern
actions is taken against such persons as provided by law.”
Referring to instances of honor killing of persons undertaking
inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of their own free will, the
Bench observed that “there is nothing honorable in such killings,
and in fact they are nothing but barbaric and shameful acts of
murder committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons who deserve
harsh punishment.”




More than 1000 young people in India are done to death every
year owing to ‘honor killing’ linked to forced marriages and the
country needs to introduce stringent legislation to deal firmly with
the heinous crimes.
Forced marriages and honor killings are often intertwined.
Marriage can be forced to save honor, and women can be
murdered for rejecting a forced marriage and marrying a life
partner of their own choice who is not acceptable for the family of
the girl. In traditional societies, honor killings are basically
‘justified’ as a sanction for ‘dishonorable’ behavior.
Ministries of Affairs and the Law and Justice are preparing to
amend the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to define the act of “honor
killing”. The demand for such a law was made repeatedly with
the objective of stamping out this social evil. “The aim is to
provide for deterrent punishment for caste and community
panchayats which should be booked for aiding and abetting such
killings and as accomplices to the murder.
Supreme Court of India, concerned over the spate of recent
‘Honor Killing” has asked the Centre and Eight State
Governments to submit reports on the steps being taken to
prevent this barbaric practice. The Court’s decision, which came
in the wake of a petition filed by an NGO that seeks a broad and
comprehensive strategy to combat the ‘Honor Crimes’ could be
just what is required to make those in power come down hard
against those responsible for the crimes.
Noting the issue has acquired alarming proportions in India and
abroad. While the Indian Government is still mulling a harsh penal
law to penalize ‘Honor Killings’, the UK has made forced marriages
a civil liability under The Forced Marriage (Civil Protection)
Act, 2007.
Be it forced marriages or Honor Killings, the social dimensions and
implications are the same. The larger issue is their resolution.
Whether it is societal or legal, is a question which will baffle legal
experts, legislators and the people who practice these heinous
Comparing the legal framework adopted by the various countries
so as to effectively combat the problem of forced marriages. It is
the States’ and the society’s responsibility to protect the human
rights of its young citizens, to avoid forced marriages, to create
possibilities and opportunities for the people concerned to break
free and to find protection, support and aid. Education of the
young women and men as well as their parents is just as much
necessary as a broad concept to empower the young people
concerned with the problem.


Khap panchayats are the clusters of people consisting of many

villages. The people are usually of the Jat community. They says
that marrying in the same gotra is a sin and against the policy of
their community. They also have the problem if someone marries
in the neighboring village. According to them all children in the
same gotra or neighboring villages are siblings and their marriage
is unnatural.
Firstly, what we noticed in the many cases is that the panchayats
had announced the murder punishment for many couples what
they call ‘Honor Killing’, who were neither of the same gotra nor
they were the residents of neighboring villages. So what we
conclude is that panchayats’ main problem is not marrying in
same gotra but young ones choosing their life partners at their
own wishes.
Secondly, these khaps are just above any law. They killed a boy
in front of the warrant officer and policemen using traditional
Thirdly, there is not any law on ‘Honor Killings’ or to govern these
khap panchayats. Silent politicians of Haryana just waived off
their moral responsibility. Union Home Minister was also
unanswerable on the issue of these kinds of killings.
Fourthly, judiciary is playing an important role. Any couple
approaching the court for the threat to their marital life, they are
providing security. Even in the Ved Pal case court has given life
imprisonment to the people involved. Also in case of Rajvinder,
Punjab and Haryana High Court announced death punishments.
Young ones are brutally beaten to death by these khaps for their
fault of marrying by their own choice. Constitutionally, their right
to choose is infringed by the leaders of these panchayats. Also
their right to life also gets violated. Approaching the court they
are equally enjoying their right to security.
So summarizing the whole report we have come to the point that
there is nothing honorable in killing your own children. The
working of khap panchayats is totally unnatural and builds
violence in the area. If judiciary is playing its role then we expect
the same from legislature to make law on ‘Honor Killings’.
Rather feeling ashamed and bending the head down our
politicians shall work on this serious issue.


In this report on Khap Panchayat-An intervention in Judicial

System, we have mainly concentrated on the issue of ‘Honor
Killings’. How the young ones who had married according to their
own wishes are beaten to death and brutally treated. Their
families are threatened by the leaders of the panchayats. We
have also given the case studies on some famous cases. In this
report silent politicians and their vote bank attitude results in lack
of any action against these panchayats. But on the other side
judiciary has announced sanctions in many cases and has been
providing security to young couples all through. We have also
shown how many rights of citizens are violated. Hope to see
legislature making tough laws and provisions against the violent
panchayats and provide justice to the victims.