The Bill proposes minimum imprisonment for a term of five years for whoever causes death of a couple through any means or either of them or any person in the name of 'honour'.
Published Jan 19, 2026 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jan 19, 2026 | 8:00 AM
The Bill prohibits acts committed in the name of caste, culture, custom, tradition, or so-called “honour” against any person.
Synopsis: The draft legislation proposed by the Karnataka government to curb caste and so-called “honour” killings prescribes a minimum five-year jail term for such murders and reaffirms the right of mutually consenting adults to marry a partner of their choice without anyone else’s approval. The Bill also sets out a wide range of punishable offences, including violence, harassment, social boycott and forced separation, and mandates protection measures such as safe houses, special police cells and time-bound investigations.
Amid a spate of caste killings in Karnataka, the government has drafted the Karnataka Freedom of Choice in Marriage and Prevention and Prohibition of Crimes in the Name of Honour and Tradition Bill, 2026, that reaffirms the right of a person to marry someone of their choice and prescribes a minimum of five years’ imprisonment for killings in the name of ‘honour’ or tradition.
The proposed law is also referred to as Iva Nammava, meaning “He is ours, he is ours,” drawn from a 12th-century Kannada Vachana by social reformer Basavanna. The phrase is said to have been suggested by Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister HK Patil.
Over the last few months, killings in the name of caste, culture, custom, tradition or so-called ‘honour’ or tradition, have jolted the state. In April 2025, a father killed his teenage daughter from the Kuruba community in Raichur after she eloped with a boy from the SC community. In August, 18-year old Kavita, a Lingayat, was killed by her father over her relationship with a boy from the Kuruba community.
In December 2025, a 20-year-old pregnant woman was killed by her family for marrying a Dalit man in Dharwad district. She was six months pregnant at the time of the murder.
Following this incident, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah announced that a Bill would be introduced in the upcoming session of the legislature to curb such crimes.
The draft Bill reaffirms that fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21, as well as rights under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, will apply to decisions regarding choosing a partner in a marriage.
However, it recognises the rise in violence, harassment, threats, and social ostracism—often in the name of caste, custom, and “honour”—targeting individuals and young couples, particularly women and men from marginalised communities.
Under the section “freedom to marry”, the bill states that any two persons who are otherwise eligible to marry have a right to marry any person of their choice without any hindrance from anyone including the parents and family members of both the parties.
A “person” here is defined as a woman aged 18 and above and a man aged 21 and above.
The consent of the person’s parents, family, caste or clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a marriage, the bill states.
For couples intending to enter into an inter-caste marriage, the bill entitles them to declare their age and willingness to be together, in oral or in writing to the District magistrate or any Nodal officer as designated for this purpose by the District Magistrate, who shall send the said information to the nearest police station.
No action shall be taken by the police and /or any other authority or at the instance of any other party, including the family members or relatives or community members of either party or any third party, against the said couple, the bill stated.
However, such a declaration is not a pre-condition for exercising the right to marry as prescribed in this bill.
The Bill prohibits acts committed in the name of caste, culture, custom, tradition, or so-called “honour” against any person for allegedly transgressing cultural, caste, social, or traditional norms of “appropriate” behaviour.
It then lists 22 acts that could constitute crimes under this section; all offences under the Bill are cognisable and non-bailable.
These include causing death, inflicting physical harm on either partner or anyone connected to them, harassing the couple or either partner to stop them from meeting, associating, or living together—physically or through any means of communication—and abducting the victim, their partner, or anyone associated with them.
Additionally, the bill prohibits social or economic boycotts of the couple or their families, as well as acts such as excommunicating, excommunication, ostracism, forced eviction, or displacement from their village, town, or neighbourhood.
Demanding financial penalties from the couple or those sheltering them, and threatening them or their families with any form of retributive action, are also criminalised.
Other banned acts include forcibly declaring a married couple as siblings, performing symbolic death or disownment rituals on a living person, and unlawfully denying inheritance or property rights. Any form of physical, mental, or psychological harassment or intimidation against the couple or those supporting them is also prohibited.
The law further criminalises illegal confinement or house arrest; confiscation of phones, laptops, or other means of communication; freezing of bank accounts; forcing employers to terminate the couple’s jobs; and acts of sexual violence or sexual harassment.
It also bans forcing a woman to undergo an abortion or miscarriage, compelling either person into a marriage against their consent, forcibly dissolving a marriage, spreading false or defamatory information to incite hatred, and exploiting someone sexually under the false promise of marriage in an inter-caste context.
The Bill proposes minimum imprisonment for a term of five years for whoever causes death of a couple through any means or either of them or any person in the name of ‘honour’.
Causing grievous hurt to a couple or either of them in the name of ‘honour’ will attract jail term of ten years which may extend to imprisonment for life and with a fine up to ₹3 lakh. For causing ‘simple hurt’ in the name of ‘honour’, the bill proposes a jail term of three—five years and with a fine of up to ₹2 lakh. (Here, grievous hurt and simple hurt have the same meaning as is given to it in section 116 and 114 of the BNS, 2023).
Other crimes committed in the name of ‘honour’ or tradition and any other act to prevent exercise of rights, but not amounting to killing or causing hurt, will attract a jail term of two—five years and a fine which may extend to ₹1 lakh. Criminal intimidation shall be punishable with a jail term of three–five years along with a fine which may extend to ₹2 lakh.
The bill also prohibits a group of five or more persons from gathering, assembling, congregating with the intention to deliberate on or condemning any marriage on the grounds that it has ‘dishonoured’ the caste, tribe, community, tradition or is against the wishes of the family or community.
It proposes a jail term of six months–five years, if such an act is committed, along with a fine of up to ₹1lakh rupees.
The Bill also expects that the state make arrangements for the protection of victims, their dependents, and witnesses against any kind of intimidation or coercion or inducement or violence or threats of violence.
These protection mechanisms include providing homes for couples in need of shelter, ensuring immediate response from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or District Magistrate upon receiving a complaint, framing a scheme for protection and rehabilitation of victims and witnesses, and identifying Districts, Sub-Divisions and/or villages where instances of crimes in the name of honour or tradition have been reported in the last five years.
The Government will also create a Special Cell for prevention of crimes in the name of ‘honour’ or ‘tradition’ in every District comprising of the Superintendent of Police, the District Social Welfare Officer.
The cells will also establish a 24-hour helpline to receive and register complaints and to provide necessary assistance and protection to the couple.
Public servants are expected to conduct the investigation and file charge sheet in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court within a period of sixty days, and to explain the delay if any, in writing, in addition to recording the complaint of the person.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
