A wise ruling

In ruling that the khap panchayats have no role whatsoever in a marriage between two consenting adults, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed one of the basic tenets of a civilised, lawful society. The apex court pointedly noted that it was for a court of law - and, not for any social group - to determine the legality or otherwise of a marriage. Nor was the court prepared to concede to these khap panchayats any status as ‘conscience keepers of society.’ As the court saw it not just the khap panchayats, but even others like the parents have no right to harass, intimidate and coerce two consenting adults.

This ruling comes in the backdrop of many instances of these “panchayats” arrogating to themselves the power to sit in judgement over marriages in their communities. There have been cases of horrible and cruel physical and sexual punishment being meted out to the ‘guilty.’ All these excesses were inflicted on individuals in the name of the community, its traditions and its honour-as also in direct violation of the basic freedom of choice guaranteed in the Constitution of India to all citizens. And, in the last few years, religious boundaries have been deemed as inviolable lines, not to be crossed in friendship, and marriage.  

The ruling is particularly welcome because it seeks to slow down, if not altogether reverse it, the larger inclination on the part of both the state and the society to crowd in on the individual. Both are making demands on the individual — on his loyalty, thinking, dress preferences, eating habits, reading choices, and  entertainment options.  The “new” India that we seem to talk so much about with so much pride is turning out to be a constricted and constraining order; the space for civil society has dramatically shrunk up. Political mobilisation on the basis of partisan, shrill and divisive rhetoric has the effect of locking up individuals in collective categories. Collectivist demands are being imposed on individuals, leaving very little scope for creativity, dissent, non-conformism. It must be hoped that the judiciary shall stay the course in its role as a vigilant guardian of individual choice and freedom.