Madras HC criticises govt over inadequate response to curb Honour Killings in Tamil Nadu

After taking up the issue suo motu earlier this month, the Madras High Court has observed that the state government appears to have done little to curb honour killings in Tamil Nadu. This, despite the Supreme Court’s directions passed last year in Shakti Vahini v Union of India. .The Bench of Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad were unequivocal in criticising the status report submitted by the state government during the hearings held in the matter yesterday and today..The Bench found it difficult to accept various submissions made in the status report, including a claim made that Special Branches were “nominated” in all police stations “to look after” instances of honour killings..The Court yesterday pointed out that the claim appeared to be absolutely impossible, given that there were well over 1,300 police stations in the state..During today’s hearing, Additional Government Pleader E Manoharan clarified that there were already special branches designated in police stations before the Shakti Vahini case. However, they have now also been given special instructions to report on honour killing cases as well..The Bench, however, was not impressed with the submission. Justice Manikumar orally observed that this would indicate that the submission made in paragraph 4 of the government report is incorrect..“Using the phrase ‘nominated to look after’ [incidents of honour killings] gives the impression that they [special branches] were specially nominated for these incidents.“.Further, he queried,.“Where are these instructions [special instructions purportedly given to special branches to deal with honour killing]? What is the instruction given?”.Additionally, the Bench pointed out that there was no concrete submission on actions taken by such special branch officers, including the number of honour killing cases reported..“Show us one report that you have received from a special branch that something [honour killing] is happening.”.The inadequacy of penalty imposed on officials failing to act against honour killings also attracted the Court’s ire. The Court was informed that four police officials were penalised with departmental action for their deliberate negligence or misconduct. .The Bench queried why such officials, who effectively aided and abetted the crime, were only penalised with postponement of their increment while the persons who committed the crime were charged with murder. The Court emphasised that such acts of deliberate negligence ought to be treated more seriously, while observing,.“By this act [of deliberate negligence] of an officer, a life is taken away.”.The Court further pulled up the state authorities over the lack of any visible sensitisation measures against the practice of honour killing. Yesterday’s hearing witnessed a skeptical Bench wondering out loud whether there was anyone present in the Court room who had come across any awareness programmes conducted by the state against honour killings pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions in Shakti Vahini..“What is the awareness [being raised]?…Did anyone in this court hall see any pamphlet regarding honour killing?” Justice Manikumar asked a silent audience..He posed the same query during today’s hearing as well,.“What is the sensitisation programme you have conducted? We haven’t come across a single one.”.Whereas Manoharan directed the Court’s attention to certain awareness programmes conducted by the state, the Bench observed that the highlighted programme was focused on awareness regarding the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act rather than against honour killings..Further, the Bench took critical note that the programmes highlighted were carried out in schools rather than being targeted towards persons who are actually in need of sensitisation..“Who practices honour killing – Parents, relatives [etc.] or school children? What is the need to talk in schools?”.A claim made concerning a helpline number to report instances of honour killings also failed to impress the Bench. In this regard, the government counsel told the Court that the number 1091 was available as a helpline, prompting the Bench to query whether anyone present in Court was aware of the same..“Has anyone of you present here seen a helpline?” asked the Bench in open Court..Even as the Bench began to observed that nobody present was aware of the 1091 helpline for honour killing, two Senior Counsel present in the courtroom brought it to the notice of the Bench that the number cited was actually a women’s helpline..Justice Manikumar, therefore, put it to the government counsel that the 1091 helpline only relates to offences against women. While a host of offences against women were mentioned in the helpline description, Justice Subramonium Prasad chimed in that it does not mention honour killings..Although Manoharan pointed out that the helpline is also meant to guard against threats to a woman’s life, Justice Manikumar was not convinced by the submission, observing,.“Why do you say only threat to life of women is there [in honour killing]?”.Overall, the Court found fault in the vague and general submissions made by the state government in the matter. In yesterday’s hearing, the Bench noted that the number of honour killing cases cited in the status report was far less compared to the number of such incidents being reported in the newspapers..While the status report points towards 23 such cases (of which five ended in acquittal) the Court orally observed yesterday that in Tamil Nadu, at least one honour killing is reported on a monthly basis in the media..To this, Manoharan had responded that several cases reported in the media only involve caste-related violence, not necessarily culminating in death. He also mentioned that the cases mentioned in the status report were verified cases of honour killing. However, during today’s hearing, the Court noted that the cases cited in the status report related to cases under the SC/ST Act, and not necessarily honour killings..As the hearing concluded today, Manoharan sought an adjournment till Monday so that he could demonstrate further the measures taken by the state. He submitted that there is evidence to show that some of the counter-measures taken by the state are on the right track. He further said that scope of awareness measures will be expanded and that more specialised measures will be implemented against honour killings..The case was registered by the High Court on July 9, days after a double murder resembling an honour killing took place in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, wherein a pregnant woman and her husband were hacked to death allegedly for entering into an inter-caste marriage. The two belonged to different subcastes within a scheduled caste community. The woman’s parents had reportedly objected to the marriage. The father of the woman has been arrested in the case.