Representational photo showing a gavel.
Credit: iStock photo
The proposed Karnataka Freedom of Choice in Marriage and Prevention and Prohibition of Crimes in the Name of Honour and Tradition Bill 2026 is a grim acknowledgement that ‘honour’ killings and related violence are not relics of a feudal past but a continuing social reality. The murder of Manya Patil in Hubballi, allegedly for marrying across caste lines, and numerous similar cases, underline why the state has gone beyond general criminal laws to frame a specific statute. At its core, the Bill makes a clear constitutional assertion. It explicitly recognises an individual’s autonomy over life and marriage, placing personal liberty above social control, and asserting that consent of family, caste or clan is unnecessary. In doing so, it consciously breaks from the Bommai government’s pernicious 2022 anti-conversion law, which subjected marriages and conversions to State scrutiny and prior notice. The new bill treats such scrutiny as a source of danger rather than protection, seeking to insulate couples from both familial and bureaucratic interference.
Legally, the Bill attempts to fill gaps in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). While the BNS punishes acts such as murder, grievous hurt and intimidation, without regard to motive, the new law defines ‘honour’ and ‘tradition’ as aggravating factors rooted in caste and community control. By mandating stiff minimum sentences, the proposed law seeks to counter the social legitimisation that often shields perpetrators. Its preventive architecture – special cells, protection mechanisms, and district-level forums – also goes beyond the purely punitive framework of the BNS. The interaction with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is equally significant. Unlike the SC/ST Act, which applies only when the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, the new legislation is caste-neutral, targeting the motive rather than identity. However, the Bill is not without concerns. While it eases justice for victims of caste-based abandonment, shifting the burden of proof on the accused in cases of alleged false promise of marriage in inter-caste relationships risks misuse, despite built-in safeguards.
Most importantly, Karnataka’s experience with the SC/ST Act offers a sobering lesson. Despite stringent provisions, conviction rates in atrocity cases remain low, largely due to weak investigation, poor prosecution, and social pressure on witnesses. New laws, however well-intentioned, cannot substitute for effective enforcement. If this Bill is to be more than a moral statement, the state must invest in professional investigation, witness protection, and prosecutorial capacity. Without that, the promise of freedom of choice will remain powerful on paper, but fragile in practice.