Author: Jeet Sinha
The Tamil Nadu Government has announced that it will establish a safe house in every district to provide protection to individuals and families vulnerable to or affected by honour killings, caste killings and related violence. It is a very significant announcement by the State Government and a positive step towards making society more secure for the exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed right of choosing one’s own partner.
The announcement was made by Tamil Nadu’s Social Justice Minister Vanni Arasu in the State Assembly and is stated to be in line with the directions of the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192. The Supreme Court directed States to provide immediate security to threatened couples and, where necessary, shift them to a safe house. It further said that State Governments may consider establishing a safe house at every district headquarters.
The move is significant not merely as a social-welfare measure but as an attempt to translate a constitutional guarantee into an institutional mechanism of protection. At the heart of the issue lies a simple constitutional proposition: an adult does not require the permission of a family, caste group or community to choose a life partner.
The State Government has decided to establish a safe house in each district for persons and families facing threats arising from honour killings, caste-based violence and related attacks. The announcement is particularly relevant to couples whose relationships or marriages face opposition because of caste or other social considerations.
Earlier, Tamil Nadu Government had introduced mechanisms including a 24-hour helpline for inter-caste couples in 2018. However, that did not acclimatize well with the social realities. Various Activists have therefore stressed that the proposed safe houses must function as genuine protection mechanisms rather than merely as formal administrative structures.
The announcement also comes against a broader debate in Tamil Nadu concerning caste-based violence and honour crimes. In October 2025, The Justice K.N. Basha Commission was constituted to address the caste-based hate crimes and honour killings. The Commission has been consulting stakeholders and recording testimonies from victims and their families. Its report, however, is still awaited. Various civil-society organisations have submitted representations to the Commission seeking a dedicated law and stronger safeguards for vulnerable inter-caste couples. The Commission is state-specific; however, its success will have a significant impact on the whole Country.
The legal significance of Tamil Nadu’s decision becomes clearer when examined against the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India. The case was related to the phenomenon of honour-protection violence, particularly violence perpetrated against couples whose choice of marriage was opposed by families, caste groups or informal community bodies such as khap panchayats.
The Supreme Court, speaking through a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, decided the case on 27 March 2018.
The Court approached the issue not merely as one concerning criminal law, but as one involving fundamental rights, individual autonomy, dignity and constitutional liberty. As a person attains majority, the ability to choose his/her life partner should be taken by them; that choice is protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
One of the most important principles emerging from Shakti Vahini is that the choice of two consenting adults to marry cannot be subordinated to the wishes of their family, caste or community. The Supreme Court made it clear that the consent of the family, community or clan is not a legal prerequisite for the marriage of two adults. The Court treated the right to choose a life partner as an aspect of individual liberty and dignity protected by the Constitution. This principle has particular importance in the context of inter-caste marriages. A person’s caste does not give another person or group a constitutional veto over whom that individual may marry.
Although, a progressive society debates about inclusiveness. If the constitutional protection is not ensured at ground level, then the inclusivity is relinquished. Additionally, the inter-caste marriage was seen as a pivotal step towards removing caste-based discrimination in the society. The concept of “family honour” cannot therefore become a justification for restricting an adult’s fundamental rights.
The judgment also makes an important conceptual distinction. The constitutional problem extends beyond the completed offence of killing. Threats, intimidation, coercion and other unlawful interference with a couple’s choice may require preventive State intervention.
The Supreme Court observed that any attempt by an assembly or community body to interfere with the lawful choice of adults amounts to an attack on their liberty and dignity. Informal bodies cannot assume the authority of courts or the State and pronounce upon the validity of an adult’s matrimonial choice. This is particularly important because an honour crime does not necessarily begin with murder.
It can begin with a threat. It can begin with surveillance. It can begin with confinement. It can begin with pressure from relatives. It can begin with a community meeting designed to force a couple apart. A meaningful protection mechanism must therefore intervene before the threat becomes violence. Prevention is always better than the cure.
In Shakti Vahini, the Supreme Court prescribed a framework involving preventive, remedial and punitive measures to deal with honour crimes.
The following measures were recommended by the Supreme Court:
The Court specifically contemplated safe houses at the district level for couples facing threats from their families, local communities or khap-like bodies. Such facilities were envisaged for both unmarried couples whose relationship was being opposed and married couples, including inter-caste and inter-religious couples. The district-level approach adopted by Tamil Nadu therefore closely corresponds with the institutional model contemplated by the Supreme Court.
The phrase “safe house” may sound like an administrative or welfare arrangement. In this context, however, it has a much deeper constitutional significance. A safe house can provide the physical space necessary for an individual to exercise a constitutional choice without fear of retaliation.
The Supreme Court’s directions contemplated that, where necessary, threatened couples should be moved to a safe house based upon their safety and threat perception. The Court also contemplated placing such facilities under the supervision of the jurisdictional District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police.
The purpose is therefore not to shelter a couple because their marriage is socially controversial. The purpose is to shelter them because their constitutional rights are under threat. That distinction matters. A couple should not be treated as persons who need to be “corrected” because their families disapprove of their relationship. They are persons entitled to State protection when another person or group threatens their life, liberty or bodily integrity. Similarly, in LGBTQ+ cases, the protection is required. It is been observed by Supreme Court in Devu G Nair v. The State of Kerala, 2024 INSC 228.
The effectiveness of Tamil Nadu’s proposed safe houses will ultimately depend on how they are administered. A safe house should not become a place where a couple is subjected to pressure to abandon their relationship or return to their families. The constitutional question is not whether the State approves of the couple’s choice. The constitutional question is whether the State protects the couple’s lawful exercise of that choice. The state should ensure that powerful families do not dominate the control of safe houses. As it would render the safe house unfruitful.
This concern has already been raised by activists in Tamil Nadu, who have emphasised that safe houses should be used for protection and should not become mechanisms for persuading couples to separate. Questions of independent oversight and accountability have therefore assumed importance.
The Shakti Vahini framework places considerable responsibility upon the State machinery. Protection cannot be postponed until after an attack. Where credible information regarding a threat is received, the police and district administration must assess the threat and take preventive measures. The Supreme Court subsequently reiterated the safe-house framework in Hari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), observing that immediate security should be provided to threatened couples and that, where necessary, they should be moved to a safe house. The Court also contemplated district-level safe houses under the supervision of the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police.
This reinforces an important point: safe houses are only one component of a larger protection system. Without responsive police machinery, threat assessment, investigation and prosecution, a building designated as a “safe house” cannot by itself fulfil the constitutional obligation.
Tamil Nadu’s announcement is significant for at least three reasons.
1. It recognises prevention as a State responsibility
The State is not required to wait for an honour killing to occur before intervening.
Preventing the attack is itself part of protecting life and liberty.
2. It gives institutional form to a Supreme Court directive
The district-level safe-house model reflects the framework contemplated by the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini.
The decision therefore represents an attempt to move from judicial directions to ground-level institutional implementation.
3. It recognises that vulnerable couples may need immediate physical protection
A legal right becomes meaningful only when a person can exercise it without facing violence for doing so. For a threatened inter-caste couple, access to a safe location, police protection and responsive administration may be the difference between exercising a constitutional right and being forced to surrender it.
Tamil Nadu’s decision to establish district-level safe houses is more than an administrative announcement. It represents an attempt to operationalise a constitutional principle articulated by the Supreme Court more than eight years ago the choice of a life partner by two consenting adults belongs to the individuals concerned, not to their family, caste group or community.
In Shakti Vahini, the Supreme Court made clear that notions of honour cannot override liberty, dignity and individual choice. The challenge now lies in implementation. If Tamil Nadu’s proposed safe houses are adequately funded, independently accessible, properly supervised and genuinely focused on protection, they could become an important institutional safeguard for couples facing caste-based and honour-related violence. The ultimate measure of the policy, however, will not be the number of buildings established. It will be whether a person can choose a life partner without having to choose between constitutional liberty and personal safety.
Author: Shana Parveen IntroductionWhat does the constitution says about the governor? The legislature and the…
Author: Jeet Sinha The problem with the idea of a “good” and “respected” womanMisconstrued meaning…
Multiple JPSC examinations cancelledCivil Judge, Combined Civil Services and other examinations also cancelledEarlier recruitment examinations…
Authors: Jeet Sinha and Suyash Shukla IntroductionFactsIssuesHomemaker: A Nation Builder and Economic EntityThe Court rejects…
Author: Suyash Shukla IntroductionBackground and ObjectivesInstitutional Structure and EnforcementObligations of StatesIndia and State PracticeCritical AnalysisConclusion…
IntroductionDefinition of Concurrent running of sentencesDefinition of Consecutive running of sentencesLegal Framework around DiscretionConclusion Introduction…