As many as 22 states and Union Territories have supported a Law Commission recommendation to bring a bill to prevent ‘honour killings’,but government today refused to fix a timeline to put in place a legal framework, saying a decision will be taken after due consultations.
Law Minister D V Sadananda Gowda informed the Lok Sabha that the policy decision to enact a legislation on the issue will be taken after considering the comments of all states and holding consultations with the stakeholders.
“In view of the above, it would be difficult to fix a timeline in this regard,” he said.
The law panel’s report on ‘prevention of interference with freedom of matrimonial alliances (in the name of honour and tradition)’ was circulated to states for their comments.
“Till date, 22 state governments and Union Territories have sent their responses and are in support of the recommendations made by the Law Commission,” he said in a written response.
The response of other states are awaited and reminders have been issued to them.
Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, UP, West Bengal and UTs of Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep and Pudducherry have supported the proposal to bring in a legal framework to prevent honour killings.
The Law Minister said as the subject of the report falls in the Concurrent List of the Constitution, consultation with states is necessary.
In its 2001 report, the panel, then headed by Justice P V Redi, had recommended brining a bill “to provide for, in the interests of protecting individual liberty and preventing victimisation, prohibition of unlawful assemblies and other conduct interfering with the freedom of matrimonial alliances in the name of honour and tradition and for the matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”
The draft legislation was named ‘The prohibition of interference with the freedom of matrimonial alliances bill’.
The report had referred to a Supreme Court decision “wherein a direction of far-reaching consequences has been given while laying down the proposition that the so-called honour killing comes within the category of rarest of the rare cases deserving death punishment.