*Right to choose ones life partner is a fundamental right, the Delhi High Court today said while expressing concern over "malaise" of honour killing stemming from a "deeply entrenched" belief in caste system prevalent even in the highest class of the society.
*
"The right to choose your life partner or whom you associate with is a fundamental right, it is an integral part of the right to life," a bench of justices Gita Mittal and J R Midha said.
It also said that an individuals privacy of marriage and dignity are essential parts of right to life guaranteed under the Constitution and the view has been upheld in various judicial pronouncements.
While holding that murder of Nitish Katara comes within the ambit of the expression honour killing, the bench said that the case manifests how such malaise is prevalent in the highest class of the society.
"Honour killing is a class of offences by itself. Its motivation stemming from a deeply entrenched belief in the caste system, it is completely unacceptable. It needs serious examination as to why such murders are not categorized as separate offences in the penal provision," it said.
"The instant case manifests that even in a household belonging to the highest class in society, (one in which you can make day trips with friends from Ghaziabad to Mumbai just to celebrate a birthday, own multiple businesses and properties, luxury vehicle etc.) what can happen to even a young, educated, articulate daughter if she attempted to break away from the conventional caste confines and explored a lifetime alliance with a member of another caste. Especially one who was also perceived to be of a lesser economic status," it said.
The court made the observations while upholding the conviction of controversial UP politician D P Yadavs son Vikas and two others in the 12-year-old Nitish Katara murder case.
Nitish, belonging to Katara caste, was abuducted and killed by Vikas, his cousin Vishal Yadav and co-convict Sukhdev Pehalwan as they did not approve victims affair with Bharti, daughter of D P Yadav, as they belonged to different castes, the court said.
The bench noted that while Bharti was a Yadav and came from a well-placed business class family with her father also being a member of Parliament but Nitish was a Katara and his father was in government service and was certainly not in the same income bracket of Bhartis family.
"The present case again brings to the fore a malaise which still afflicts Indian society that finds its roots in entrenched social structures based on religion, caste and economic standing.
"What is of special concern is that such divisive forces exist even on the borders of Delhi - the nations capital, which is also a cosmopolitan city," it said.
The bench also said that Bharti, who was sent out of India to the UK and kept out of the court for over three-and- a-half years, was also a victim of the honour killing.
"Her testimony is evidence of the influence of her brothers and family as she prevaricates over trivial matters and denies established facts borne out by documentary evidence. Finally, when she must have been stretched to the utmost, she succumbs to their pressures when she concedes a deviously put suggestion," the bench said.
It said that every woman, or girl, who faces opposition from their famile members for choosing their life partners from different caste, should be given protection.
"Going back to the course of events in the present case which unfolded in 2002, would it not be permissible to treat Bharti Yadav as also a traumatized victim of the crime committed by the appellants? Or for that matter, should not every woman, or girl, whose freedom to choose her partner is so taken away by any person, be treated as a victim of the crime of honour killing as well? Such a woman is left to face the criticism and ill treatment of her family and caste, completely defenceless and alone.
"It is high time that such women are afforded similar protections as are being provided to victims of other kinds of violence (including sexual violence) so that they are able to live life with dignity and self respect on their terms, in the manner they choose. Certainly not in a manner where critical choices regarding their lives are taken by others and thrust upon them," it said. Reported by Deccan Herald 5 hours ago.
*
"The right to choose your life partner or whom you associate with is a fundamental right, it is an integral part of the right to life," a bench of justices Gita Mittal and J R Midha said.
It also said that an individuals privacy of marriage and dignity are essential parts of right to life guaranteed under the Constitution and the view has been upheld in various judicial pronouncements.
While holding that murder of Nitish Katara comes within the ambit of the expression honour killing, the bench said that the case manifests how such malaise is prevalent in the highest class of the society.
"Honour killing is a class of offences by itself. Its motivation stemming from a deeply entrenched belief in the caste system, it is completely unacceptable. It needs serious examination as to why such murders are not categorized as separate offences in the penal provision," it said.
"The instant case manifests that even in a household belonging to the highest class in society, (one in which you can make day trips with friends from Ghaziabad to Mumbai just to celebrate a birthday, own multiple businesses and properties, luxury vehicle etc.) what can happen to even a young, educated, articulate daughter if she attempted to break away from the conventional caste confines and explored a lifetime alliance with a member of another caste. Especially one who was also perceived to be of a lesser economic status," it said.
The court made the observations while upholding the conviction of controversial UP politician D P Yadavs son Vikas and two others in the 12-year-old Nitish Katara murder case.
Nitish, belonging to Katara caste, was abuducted and killed by Vikas, his cousin Vishal Yadav and co-convict Sukhdev Pehalwan as they did not approve victims affair with Bharti, daughter of D P Yadav, as they belonged to different castes, the court said.
The bench noted that while Bharti was a Yadav and came from a well-placed business class family with her father also being a member of Parliament but Nitish was a Katara and his father was in government service and was certainly not in the same income bracket of Bhartis family.
"The present case again brings to the fore a malaise which still afflicts Indian society that finds its roots in entrenched social structures based on religion, caste and economic standing.
"What is of special concern is that such divisive forces exist even on the borders of Delhi - the nations capital, which is also a cosmopolitan city," it said.
The bench also said that Bharti, who was sent out of India to the UK and kept out of the court for over three-and- a-half years, was also a victim of the honour killing.
"Her testimony is evidence of the influence of her brothers and family as she prevaricates over trivial matters and denies established facts borne out by documentary evidence. Finally, when she must have been stretched to the utmost, she succumbs to their pressures when she concedes a deviously put suggestion," the bench said.
It said that every woman, or girl, who faces opposition from their famile members for choosing their life partners from different caste, should be given protection.
"Going back to the course of events in the present case which unfolded in 2002, would it not be permissible to treat Bharti Yadav as also a traumatized victim of the crime committed by the appellants? Or for that matter, should not every woman, or girl, whose freedom to choose her partner is so taken away by any person, be treated as a victim of the crime of honour killing as well? Such a woman is left to face the criticism and ill treatment of her family and caste, completely defenceless and alone.
"It is high time that such women are afforded similar protections as are being provided to victims of other kinds of violence (including sexual violence) so that they are able to live life with dignity and self respect on their terms, in the manner they choose. Certainly not in a manner where critical choices regarding their lives are taken by others and thrust upon them," it said. Reported by Deccan Herald 5 hours ago.