Honour Killing in India: When Your Family Becomes Your Persecutor

Last updated: 1 October 2026

Photo: Rajasthan .. India - Nick Kenrick

Honour killing in India is a form of family violence where relatives kill or injure a loved one to defend "honour." The target has usually broken a social rule. They may have married outside their caste or religion. They may have refused an arranged marriage. They may be in a same-sex relationship. Or they may simply be seen as "too modern." In these cases, the family itself becomes the persecutor. Police often fail to protect victims because officers share the same community values or face local pressure. For expert witnesses and asylum decision-makers, India honour killing cases raise unique questions about state protection and internal relocation.

This country of origin information (COI) report reviews what is known about honour violence in India. It covers scale, triggers, state response, and asylum implications. The report draws on data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Supreme Court rulings, and reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Indian women's rights groups such as AIDWA and Shakti Vahini.

When Family Becomes Persecutor

In most asylum claims, the persecutor is the state. However, India honour killing cases show a different pattern. Here, the persecutor is the family itself. Parents, brothers, uncles, or cousins plan and carry out the violence. They may act alone. Or they may act with the support of a village caste council called a khap panchayat. The killing is often public so the community sees that "honour" has been restored. Some victims survive with severe injuries. Others are held captive, forced into marriage, or disappear.[1]

The concept of "honour" in India links tightly to the control of women's sexuality and to caste endogamy. Marriage within the same caste has been a social rule for centuries. When a woman chooses a partner outside her caste, she is seen to shame not only her family but the wider kin group. The shame, in this view, can only be removed by violence. Men who marry outside caste or religion also face violence, though less often. LGBTQ+ people face related forms of family violence, including forced marriage and "conversion therapy."[2]

Scale: What the Data Shows

Official data on India honour killing is weak. The NCRB began recording "honour killing" as a separate category only in 2014. The numbers are very low. In 2019, the NCRB recorded just 25 honour killings in all of India. In 2020, the number fell to 13. In 2021, it rose slightly to 28. These figures do not reflect reality. Most honour crimes are recorded as general murder or even as suicide. Families and police often classify these deaths as "natural" causes or "accidents."[3]

Civil society groups give much higher estimates. The All India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA) estimates at least 1,000 honour killings per year. The NGO Shakti Vahini, which took the issue to the Supreme Court, estimates similar numbers. A 2010 study published in the medical journal The Lancet, examining mortality surveys, suggested that honour killings of young women in some parts of India may be underreported by a factor of 10 or more. The gap between official and real figures is very wide.[4]

Triggers: What Causes Honour Violence

Honour violence has clear triggers. The following table lists the most common ones and the typical family response. These patterns have been documented by NGOs, researchers, and courts.

Inter-caste marriage is the most documented trigger. India Human Development Survey data show that only about 5% of marriages cross caste lines. When they do, violence often follows, especially when the woman is from a higher caste than the man. In 2007, Manoj and Babli, a couple from Karora village in Haryana, were killed on the orders of Babli's khap because they had married within the same gotra (clan). Five men were convicted, including her relatives. This was the first case in India where a court handed down capital punishment for an honour killing.[5]

Inter-religion marriage is especially risky. Hindu-Muslim couples face pressure from both families. In addition, Hindu nationalist groups have promoted the "love jihad" conspiracy theory. This theory falsely claims that Muslim men lure Hindu women into marriage to convert them. Anti-conversion laws in states like Uttar Pradesh now give this theory legal cover. Couples can be arrested under these laws shortly after marriage. In some cases, Hindu families have demanded police arrest a Muslim groom as a condition of not killing their daughter.[6]

Khap Panchayats: Village Caste Councils

Khap panchayats are informal caste councils that exist in parts of north India. They are especially active in Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh, and parts of Rajasthan. The councils consist of male elders from a specific caste, usually Jats. Khaps claim to settle community disputes. In practice, they also enforce caste rules about marriage. When a couple violates these rules, a khap may order "social boycott," beatings, or even killings. Khaps have no legal status but hold real social power.[7]

Some khaps have issued written orders (fatwas) against specific couples. In 2009, a khap in Uttar Pradesh ordered the cancellation of a marriage and imposed a fine of 25,000 rupees on the family. In 2014, a khap in Haryana allegedly ordered the gang-rape of two Dalit sisters as punishment for their brother's inter-caste elopement. The case drew international condemnation. Amnesty International took up the case. Many such orders are never formally documented but are understood by the community.[8]

State Response: Law and Its Limits

India has no specific honour killing law. Killings are prosecuted under Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. Since 2023, these are covered under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Sections 103 and 61. The absence of a specific law has been a long-standing concern. The Law Commission of India recommended a specific Prevention of Crimes in the Name of Honour bill in 2012. Parliament has not passed it. The Prevention of Social Boycott by Khap Panchayats law has been proposed several times but not enacted at central level.[9]

The Supreme Court has been more active. In Lata Singh v State of UP (2006), the court held that adult citizens have the right to marry whomever they choose. In Arumugam Servai v State of Tamil Nadu (2011), the court called khap panchayats "kangaroo courts" and ordered criminal action against their members. The landmark ruling came in Shakti Vahini v Union of India (2018). This 2018 judgment issued detailed guidelines for preventive, remedial, and punitive measures against honour crimes.[10]

The consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock. Assertion of choice is an insegregable facet of liberty and dignity. Any attempt at social coercion or intimidation to prevent this choice is impermissible.
Supreme Court of India, Shakti Vahini v Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192

The Shakti Vahini guidelines require state governments to identify districts with high honour crime. They require special protection for vulnerable couples, including safe houses and police escorts. They ban khap panchayat gatherings aimed at preventing inter-caste marriages. States are required to prosecute khap members who issue such orders. Enforcement remains weak. Most states have not set up the specific protection homes or fast-track courts required by the Supreme Court.[11]

Geography: Where Honour Killings Happen

Honour violence is not evenly spread across India. It is most common in the northern states with strong caste patriarchy and active khap panchayats. The following chart shows the most affected states based on documented cases from media reports and NGO data.

The so-called "honour belt" runs across Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Punjab also shows significant numbers, often linked to Sikh families. In southern states, honour killings are less common but not absent. In Tamil Nadu, a 2016 case involving Shankar, a Dalit man killed for marrying an upper-caste Thevar woman in public daylight, showed that honour violence also persists in the south. The state convicted six members of the bride's family. However, upper-caste groups continue to resist inter-caste marriage.[12]

Police Response: Failure to Protect

Police in the honour belt often fail to protect threatened couples. Several factors explain this. First, many officers share the community's values about caste and marriage. Second, khap panchayats have political influence, especially in rural areas. Third, families often file false charges against the couple, such as kidnapping or theft, to pressure police to arrest them. Fourth, police resource constraints mean couples cannot get constant protection. Moreover, couples who flee to Delhi or other cities still face risk if family networks track them.[13]

Some states have tried to set up protection structures. Haryana has "safe houses" for couples. Delhi has a women's helpline that connects threatened women to legal aid. However, coverage is uneven. Many couples only receive protection for a few days or weeks. The Shakti Vahini judgment required 24-hour helplines and special cells. A 2023 RTI investigation by The Quint found that most states have not fully implemented these requirements.[14]

Internal Relocation: Why It Often Fails

Internal relocation sounds simple but rarely works in honour cases. First, India has strong family networks that cross state lines. A Jat family from Haryana can call on Jat contacts in Mumbai, Bangalore, or Pune to find a runaway couple. Second, many documents in India require local verification. This includes rental agreements, school admissions, and government schemes. Third, community marriage registers, temple contacts, and caste associations can track couples through everyday life events. Fourth, mobile phones and social media leave digital traces.[15]

Some couples succeed in relocation. They change names, avoid family weddings, and live in anonymous urban environments. However, this usually requires that the couple has education, money, and city experience. Rural couples from poor backgrounds often lack these resources. For these couples, relocation within India may not be a reasonable protection alternative. Courts in the UK and other jurisdictions have recognized that internal relocation must be realistic, not just theoretical, applying Januzi v Secretary of State [2006] UKHL 5.[16]

Implications for Asylum Claims

Honour-based asylum claims from India typically engage two grounds of the 1951 Refugee Convention. First, "membership of a particular social group." Women facing forced marriage, inter-caste couples, and LGBTQ+ individuals all form recognizable social groups under the Acosta test. Second, "religion," where the claim involves inter-faith marriage or forced conversion. The UNHCR Gender Guidelines (2002) and the Guidelines on Membership of a Particular Social Group support these classifications.[17]

On state protection, decision-makers should apply the Horvath v Secretary of State [2001] sufficiency test. The question is not whether laws exist, but whether the state provides effective protection in practice. Given documented police bias, weak implementation of Shakti Vahini guidelines, and the strong social pressure on officers, many honour cases show a failure of state protection. The UK Upper Tribunal in PS (India) [2016] and similar cases has recognized that India does not provide uniform protection for women facing honour violence.[18]

On internal relocation, the Januzi test asks whether relocation is "reasonable" given the person's circumstances. Factors include age, gender, education, urban-rural background, and caste. A young Dalit woman from rural Haryana with no urban contacts may not be able to safely relocate to Mumbai. A middle-class urban professional may have more options. Each case must be assessed on its facts. For related analysis see our country reports.

Conclusion

India honour killing cases are a special kind of asylum claim. The persecutor is the family, not the state. Yet the state's failure to protect turns these into refugee cases. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly against honour crimes in Shakti Vahini and earlier rulings. However, implementation remains weak. Police in the honour belt often share family values or face local pressure. Khap panchayats continue to enforce caste endogamy through threats, boycotts, and sometimes killings.

For asylum decision-makers, the key questions are clear. Does the claimant belong to a recognizable social group? Is state protection sufficient in practice? Is internal relocation realistic given the claimant's profile? For many Indian honour cases, the answers favour recognition of refugee status. Expert evidence can help clarify the specific risk. Practitioners handling these cases may consult a South Asia expert witness for individualized opinion on state protection and relocation in the relevant region.