Across the rural heartlands of India, Justice is not always administered in courtrooms decorated with law books and lined with judges' benches. Sometimes, it is delivered under a modest roof by elderly males of the village, who invoke tradition and honour rather than statutes and precedents. This is one of the various non-conventional adjudication systems across the world, primarily known as the Khap Panchayat. Khap Panchayat is an informal judicial assembly that seeks to preserve morality and the honour of the village. Nowadays, their scope has expanded to include live-in couples and homosexual couples, which are arguably the most intimate aspects of modern life.
The Enduring Power of Custom
The Khap Panchayats are centuries-old institutions. They trace their genesis back to the ancient kinship-based governance framework, which used to mediate local disputes. On paper, they act as a subordinate decision-making body. In reality, they tend to be the custodians of rigid social and political hierarchies. Though unenforceable, rulings of the khap panchayat hold immense social value, and their defiance can lead to consequences such as violence, ostracism, or even loss of life.
Historian Prem Chowdhry, in his writing named Contentious Marriages, Eloping Couples: Gender, Caste and Patriarchy in Northern India (2007), defined Khap Panchayat as “ extra-constitutional power centres that discipline bodies and emotions in the name of preserving caste purity. One thing that has transformed in these years is not their authority, but the scope of what they deem should be sanctioned.
From Eloping Couples to Queer Love
Khap Panchayat has become an infamous adjudication system mostly because of its verdicts on eloping couples. It is worrisome to see their scope stretching and including same sex partnerships and live-in relationships. In July 2024, approximately 300 Khap Panchayats came together and held a “ mahapanchayat” in Jind city of Haryana, demanding a ban on same-sex marriage and on live-in relationships. Their animosity towards homosexuality can be seen by their words used in the mahapanchayat, asking that same sex marriages should be banned, as even the animals shun this. These words, emanating from an apparent judicial body of immense social significance, are alarming.
The Supreme Court decriminalised same sex relationships in its landmark judgment of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. The judgment spread cautious optimism across the homosexual community and demonstrated that constitutional values should always be given priority over social moral values. However, the law's promise cannot reach many villages.
Reports from organisations such as the Centre for Social Research and Human Rights Watch highlight that rural and semi-urban homosexual people suffer community-sanctioned violence and counselling sessions by informal councils. These councils similarly respond to homosexuality as the khap panchayat, where same-sex relationships are seen as a disease or Western corruption. Furthermore, Couples are coerced into separation or publicly humiliated.
The Supreme Court refused to recognise same-sex marriage as a legally valid marriage in its notable judgment of Supriyo Kumar v Union of India. This judgment was merrily welcomed by several khap leaders, declaring that nature's order should not be disturbed. Their statements were widely reported in national newspapers and other means of communication, testifying to the depth of their resistance to queer unions, and revealing how extra-constitutional authorities like Khap Panchayats use the judiciary's hesitation to reaffirm their own legitimacy.
Live-In Relationships: A Modern Threat to Traditional Order
Similar moral logic drives the khap responses to live-in relationships. For khap and similar institutions, cohabitation without marriage is not just immoral, it is heretical. In 2021, a khap in Uttar Pradesh allegedly ordered ostracism of a young couple in a live-in relationship. They called the act of boycotting an affront to village values. There are numerous reports of similar incidents where constant pressure is put on the family to bring the girl back or oust the couple completely.
From Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) to Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Indian judicial system has consistently reaffirmed the legality of live-in relationships. However, these precedents often cannot make their impact in rural communities. The Law Commission of India (242nd report, 2012) cautioned that local bodies like Khap Panchayat pose a peril to the constitutional rights, especially in cases regarding personal choices. However, even after more than a decade, the caution seems to serve no purpose.
The Judicial Paradox: Custom versus Constitution
The clash between Constitutional morality and Khap Panchayats in India reveals an intriguing paradox. It reveals the coexistence of legal modernity with social morality. In theory, the Indian constitution provides several rights, such as individual liberty, freedom of association, and gender equality. In reality, it is driven by social legitimacy, which often relies on community-based norms.
This contradiction was revealed by the Supreme Court in its verdict of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India. The Court declared that “any assembly, whether defined as Khap or otherwise, which attempts to scuttle or interfere with a marriage between consenting adults, is illegal.” The Court ordered state governments to create mechanisms for prevention and remedies. However, field studies reveal the lack of efficient enforcement. Furthermore, police often refuse to write complaints against leaders of Khap, citing local sensitivities and traditions.
This neglect becomes more evident in cases involving same-sex relationships or live-in partnerships. Unfortunately, victims rarely happen to turn to authorities, afraid of family retaliation or humiliation. Therefore, it consequently becomes a de facto system of community-based law, whereby the meaning of individual liberty does not stem from the constitution rather from local customs.
Gender, Caste, and the New Moral Panic
Khap's fierce defiance of homosexual and live-in relationships needs to be contextualised within the interlinked framework of caste and gender. Marriage is not a private contract or a consensual decision of two adults in this system. Rather, marriage is a means of reproducing the caste order and reinforcing patriarchal authority. Whether homosexual or heterosexual, any partnership that slips away from the social structure challenges the very fundamental principle on which these communities are built.
According to the sociologist Ravinder Kaur, “the panic over homosexual and live-in relationships is not merely concerned with sexuality; it is more concerned with the fear of losing control over women's bodies and the lineage system.” Kaur's insight clearly explains that Khap verdicts are deeply political, framed as moral or cultural decisions. They try to preserve patriarchal dominance and guillotine caste boundaries in the facade of saving the honour of the community.
The State's Complicity and Silence
The political actors and higher authorities seldom confront such assemblies. Various Khap members hold considerable electoral clout, and their sponsorships often swing votes across the states. Therefore, political rhetoric about khaps hovers between the thin line of cautious advocacy and deliberate silence. Authorities often use the excuse of tradition to justify their silence, permitting institutions like Khap to co-exist with democracy.
According to Flavia Agnes, a legal scholar who has cogently critiqued the assembly, warns that enforcement of Khap's rulings undermines the moral basis of constitutionalism. When the government entertains a parallel system of justice out of political expedience, it implicitly supports the collapse of personal liberty. Assemblies such as Khap lead to a plural legal structure in which love, irrespective of sexuality, is permissible based on geography and social standing.
Reimagining Justice Beyond Custom
What does justice mean in a world where love is seen as a crime by community norms? For young couples, homosexual or heterosexual, married or cohabiting, Justice often means the simple right to live without constant surveillance. It means being safe from the family as well as the community, from social humiliation as much as from the police's indifference.
Grassroots feminist and queer collectives are creating a means to their justice. Locally, NGOs in Haryana and Punjab operate safe houses and legal services for inter-caste and same-sex couples. The digital network also becomes useful in undermining the monopoly of Khap stories over morality. While promising, these initiatives often remain unable to serve their full purpose.
Love, Law, and the Limits of Reform
The story of Khap Panchayat demonstrates the persistent evolution of social power as the law evolves. While the constitution upholds values such as individual freedom, the community assemblies like khaps often override it in the name of honour, culture, or religion.
The Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar made a conscious reaffirmation of the Constitution's guarantee to protect the right to love and find fulfilment in human relationships, which indeed was a landmark turn in Indian jurisprudence. But until extra-constitutional bodies remain arbiters of intimacy, love will remain on trial in India, decided not by the law, but rather by community-based norms.
Author is second year law student at National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Views Are Personal.
REFERENCES
Cases
Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India
Shakti Vahini v Union of India
Secondary Sources
Flavia Agnes, 'Law, Justice, and Gender: Reclaiming the Feminist Voice' (2019) Economic and Political Weekly
Prem Chowdhry, Contentious Marriages, Eloping Couples: Gender, Caste and Patriarchy in Northern India (Oxford University Press 2007)
Ravinder Kaur, 'Caste, Gender and the Politics of Honour' (2011) Sociological Bulletin
Law Commission of India, Prevention of Interference with the Freedom of Matrimonial Alliances (Report No 242, 2012)