“The Ostracization Must Cease”: Rajasthan High Court Forms Panel to Investigate Khap Panchayats and “Deep-Rooted Social Evils” Including “Honor Killings,” “Exorcism,” and Social Boycotts
Isabella Mariam
The Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali at the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, directed the constitution of a five-member commission to investigate the prevalence of social evils in rural areas, including ostracization, Khap-imposed sanctions, and honor-based violence. The court remarked that "the prevailing social injustices demand urgent and careful attention, necessitating effective legal and social interventions to uphold the principles of equality, dignity, and justice."
The court's decision arises from multiple petitions pointing to social malpractices in western Rajasthan, particularly Jodhpur Rural, Barmer, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Nagaur, and Pali, where Khap leaders impose unlawful fines and social boycotts on individuals who defy traditional norms, especially in matters of marriage. Justice Farjand Ali noted the continued existence of "numerous instances of like nature" and directed steps to ascertain ground realities.
The Bench imposed no immediate penalties but mandated comprehensive field investigations. It directed the appointment of four advocates and one social worker as Court Commissioners. These Commissioners are to collaborate with law enforcement to prepare a detailed report on these issues before the court’s next hearing scheduled for 14 May 2025.
The petitioners in the connected cases, Bhaka Ram and others, brought to the court's attention the social ostracization and illegal actions taken by village Khap Panchayats and other community leaders. The grievances revolved around sanctions against individuals who entered into marriages of their own volition. These actions reportedly included imposing fines, social boycotts, and in some cases, threats of violence and forced separations.
Petitioner Bhaka Ram, a resident of Jeetpura in Jalore District, contended that the Khap Panchayat operating in his region had imposed unjust restrictions and punishments upon couples engaging in love marriages. In the connected writ petitions, petitioners from Nagaur District, raised similar concerns against police inaction and complicity in perpetuating such discriminatory practices.
Another petitioner, highlighted the plight of Dalit and marginalized women, who, according to her submissions, were branded as witches or subjected to exorcism-related violence. The petitions underscored how unlawful assemblies and social sanctions were adversely affecting individuals' constitutional rights to life, liberty, and dignity.
During arguments, counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Arjun Singh, Mr. Divik Mathur, and Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi, submitted that such practices violate various statutory provisions including those under the Indian Penal Code, the Protection of Human Rights Act, and other laws criminalizing unlawful assembly, extortion, and acts that abet suicide or homicide.
The respondents, represented by Deputy Government Advocate Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Assistant Government Advocate Mr. Ravindra Singh, and SHO Tejkaran of Luni Police Station, were present in person. The respondents assured the court that appropriate legal measures were being taken and extended support to any fact-finding initiative by the court.
Justice Ali, while discussing the background, recorded that the matter pertains not only to individual rights but also to entrenched systemic issues that require a multi-faceted intervention.
The court traced the historical trajectory of social reforms in India, citing figures like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Jyotirao Phule, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda, and Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar. Justice Ali observed that "despite the tireless efforts and sacrifices of these great reformers, it is disheartening to note that several social evils continue to persist in contemporary society."
In discussing the specific social issues, the court noted that love marriages are still "considered a taboo" in many villages and couples often face "ostracization by their families and communities." The court identified the role of Khap Panchayats, stating that these informal bodies impose "severe penalties and fines based on age-old traditions, enforcing outdated customs on modern societal issues." It further observed that such acts violate "the fundamental rights of individuals."
Addressing caste-based discrimination, the court recorded that "the individuals who marry outside their caste or religion often face social ostracization from both their families and society at large." On the topic of honor killings, it referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 475, recording that "there is no honor in honor killings; rather, they are shameful acts perpetrated by brutal and feudal-minded individuals."
The judgment also delved into practices such as exorcism, where women are branded as witches, subjected to "atrocious treatment," and in some cases, sexually exploited under the guise of superstition. Justice Ali recorded that such practices "constitute serious criminal offences." The court also noted the existence of Naata Pratha, which it described as "an informal marital arrangement that lacks legal or social stability," leading to children being deprived of parental care.
The court concluded that these "social evils continue to plague communities, causing immense harm to individuals and hindering social progress."
The court directed that a commission comprising four advocates—Mr. Ramavtar Singh Chaudhary, Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi, Ms. Shobha Prabhakar, and Mr. Devkinandan Vyas—and one social worker, Mr. Mahaveer Kankariya, shall investigate the on-ground situation. The court further instructed that "the Superintendent of Police is expected to provide full assistance to the appointed Commissioners and ensure their security, including armed protection, throughout their visit."
The Commissioners are tasked with visiting affected districts, engaging with local police and civic authorities, and preparing a detailed report on "the malpractices carried out under the guise of customs and rituals." The court directed that arrangements for "conveyance, boarding, and lodging" be facilitated by Mr. Mahaveer Kankariya through his trust, Jiyo Aur Jine Do Trust, to support the Commissioners' work.
Justice Ali stated that "the Court expects an exhaustive and detailed report from the Court Commissioners to shed light on the extent of these societal malpractices."
The matter has been listed for further proceedings on 14 May 2025, with S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 434/2025 also connected with the present petitions.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Arjun Singh, Advocate, Mr. Divik Mathur, Advocate, Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Deputy Government Advocate, Mr. Ravindra Singh, Assistant Government Advocate, Mr. Tejkaran, SHO, Luni
Case Title: Bhaka Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Other Connected Petitions
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1306/2025, S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 567/2025, S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 625/2025
Bench: Justice Farjand Ali
[Read/Download order]
