LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Shakti Vahini v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2018 INSC 266Decided 27 Mar 2018
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 231 of 2010
Chief Justice Dipak Misra · Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Background

An NGO, Shakti Vahini, filed a writ petition directly in the Supreme Court asking the Court to direct the Central and State Governments to take preventive steps against "honour killings": violence inflicted on young couples, often by self-appointed clan or community bodies known as khap panchayats, for marrying against the wishes of family or community (including inter-caste and inter-religious marriages). The petitioner sought a national and state-level plan of action, special police cells couples could approach for protection, and mandatory prosecution in honour-crime cases. The Court examined extensive material on how khap panchayats operate and the violence and social boycott they inflict on consenting adult couples.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the right of two consenting adults to choose their own life partner is an inseparable part of liberty and dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that neither family, community, nor any informal body like a khap panchayat has any authority to veto or punish that choice. It held that such assemblies acting against a couple's marriage have no legal sanction whatsoever and that their actions, including threats, violence, and social boycott, are wholly illegal and must be stopped entirely, since only the formal justice system, not self-appointed community bodies, can determine criminality or impose consequences. The Court laid down detailed preventive, remedial, and punitive directions for across India: police must register FIRs immediately on learning of threatening khap gatherings, District Magistrates/SPs must set up safe houses and a 24-hour helpline for threatened couples, Special Cells must be created in every district, fast-track courts must try honour-crime cases within six months, and officials who fail to act face departmental/disciplinary action. States were directed to comply within six weeks and report compliance to the Court, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly with these directions binding under Article 32 until Parliament legislates on the subject.

Lesson Learnt

No family, caste group, or community panchayat has any legal power to stop, punish, or take "action" against the marriage of two consenting adults, doing so is itself a crime, and any couple facing such threats is entitled to police protection, a safe house, and a dedicated helpline under directions that remain binding law today.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case