English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

No one has right to interfere in marriage of consenting adults: CJI on khap panchayats

Published

8 years ago

on

Husband watches adult films, ruining married life, wife petitions Supreme Court

In a strident reprimand of khap panchayats (self-anointed family courts) who sanction assaults on couples who marry despite their objections, Chief Justice Dipak Misra, on Monday (February 5), said that no one has the right to interfere if two consenting adults decide to enter into matrimony.

The verbal rebuke by the Chief Justice of India came during proceedings in a writ petition filed by NGO Shakti Vahini, which has sought a ban on khap panchayats.

The khaps, as these self-appointed courts are often referred to, are a common phenomenon in parts of north India, particularly Haryana, and have often been in the dock for sanctioning violence against consenting adults – usually from the same ‘gotra’ – who decide to marry. Over the years, several murders of such couples have been reported by the media and the role of the khaps in sanctioning these killings has often come to light.

The Supreme Court Bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, made it amply clear that “Where two consenting adults agree to enter into matrimony, no individual rights, group rights or collective rights shall interfere therein or harass the couple”.

The Chief Justice pointedly told the counsels appearing for the khap panchayats: “if two adult persons are marrying with their consent, you are no one to create an obstacle”, while adding “whether it is parents, society or anyone, they are out of it.”

Curiously a counsel appearing for the khap panchayats argued that these “family courts” are “against honour killings” and “support inter-caste as well as inter-religious marriages”. However, the counsel added: “Because of the skewed sex ratio in Haryana, as many 2.5 million local boys have married in other states. What the Khap Panchayats are opposed to is intra-gotra marriage. Say, I am a ‘Hooda’; it is an age old tradition that a hooda shall not marry another hooda. They are deemed to descended from a common ancestor and hence, are siblings.”

The khaps submitted further that “as per Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, marriages between sapindas – calculated as within 5 degrees of relations from the father’s side and 3 degrees on the mother’s side – are prohibited. Scientifically also it has been proven that such marriages have a disastrous impact on the genetics of the children.”

However, the Chief Justice said: “We are not concerned with the Khap Panchayats. Nobody, neither the society, the parents nor other relatives of either party to the marriage nor the Panchayats, may interfere”.

Chief Justice Dipak Misra took offence to the counsel of the khap panchayats submitting that his clients were acting as “conscience keepers” of the society and told him, “Don’t be conscience keepers. If two adults want to get married nobody should interfere.”

On the specific reference to the opposition of khap panchayats to intra-gotra marriages, the Chief Justice said: “We are not writing an essay here. We are not concerned with thesapinda or gotra. We are only interested in the decision of two adults to get married. If any issue arises in respect of the marital status or property, the court shall be entitled to decide the same. The children may be legitimate or illegitimate, that may be for determination in a partition suit. Similarly, even the marriage may be null and void. But you keep out of it. No third party shall interfere.”

It is pertinent to recall that on the last date of hearing, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who has been appointed amicus curiae in the case, had filed his report before the court detailing suggestions on the issue of khap panchayats and ‘honour killings’ (a term often used by votaries of these family courts to justify murders of couples who had married despite being sapindas or from the same gotra).

The Bench has granted time to Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand, till February 16 – the next date of hearing in the case – to file the centre’s response to Ramachandran’s report stating that this is a “serious issue.”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

DU VC Prof Yogesh Singh entrusted with additional charge of AICTE Chairman

Published

8 hours ago

on

December 22, 2025

By

Prof. Yogesh Singh, Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi, has been entrusted with the additional charge of the post of Chairman, AICTE till the appointment of a Chairman of AICTE or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

It is noteworthy that AICTE Chairman Prof. TG Sitharam was relieved of his duties after his term ended on December 20, 2025. According to a letter issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, on Monday, Prof. Yogesh Singh’s appointment is until the appointment of a regular AICTE Chairman or until further orders whichever is earlier.

Prof. Yogesh Singh is a renowned academician with excellent administrative capabilities, who has been the Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi since October 2021. He has also served as the Chairperson of the National Council for Teacher Education. In August 2023, he was also given the additional charge of Director of the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA).

Prof. Yogesh Singh served as the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi Technological University from 2015 to 2021; Director of Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology, Delhi from 2014 to 2017, and before that, he was the Vice-Chancellor of Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda (Gujarat) from 2011 to 2014. He holds a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. He has a distinguished track record in quality teaching, innovation, and research in the field of software engineering.

Continue Reading

India News

Goa nightclub fire case: Court extends police custody of Luthra brothers by five days

A Goa court has extended the police custody of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of the nightclub where a deadly fire killed 25 people, by five more days.

Published

9 hours ago

on

December 22, 2025

By

Luthra brothers

A court in Goa on Monday extended the police custody of Saurabh Luthra and Gaurav Luthra, the owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub, by five more days in connection with the deadly fire incident that claimed 25 lives on December 6.

The order was passed as investigators sought additional time to question the two accused in the case linked to the blaze at the Anjuna-based nightclub.

Owners were deported after fleeing abroad

According to details placed before the court, the Luthra brothers had left the country following the incident and travelled to Thailand. They were subsequently deported and brought back to India on December 17, after which they were taken into police custody.

Advocate Vishnu Joshi, representing the families of the victims, confirmed that the court granted a five-day extension of police custody for both Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra.

Another co-owner sent to judicial custody

The court also remanded Ajay Gupta, another owner of the nightclub, to judicial custody. Police did not seek an extension of his custody, following which the court passed the order, the victims’ counsel said.

The Anjuna police have registered a case against the Luthra brothers for culpable homicide not amounting to murder along with other relevant offences related to the fire incident.

Continue Reading

India News

Delhi High Court issues notice to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi in National Herald case

Delhi High Court has sought responses from Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on the ED’s plea challenging a trial court order in the National Herald case.

Published

11 hours ago

on

December 22, 2025

By

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the National Herald case. The petition challenges a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notices to the Gandhis and other accused on the main petition, as well as on the ED’s application seeking a stay on the trial court’s December 16 order. The high court has listed the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026.

The trial court had ruled that taking cognisance of the ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” because the investigation was not based on a registered First Information Report (FIR). It observed that the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not maintainable in the absence of an FIR for a scheduled offence.

According to the order, the ED’s probe originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR. The court further noted that since cognisance was declined on a legal question, it was not necessary to examine the merits of the allegations at that stage.

The trial court also referred to the complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the summoning order issued in 2014, stating that despite these developments, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.

The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and a private company, Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. The agency has alleged that properties worth around Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper, were acquired through Young Indian.

The agency further claimed that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi held a majority 76 per cent shareholding in Young Indian, which allegedly took over AJL’s assets in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com