Honour killing: Cops warned of stringent action

For the second day in a row, a division bench comprising Justice S Manikumar and Justice Subramonium Prasad trashed the status report filed by the police claiming that special branches were nominated in all police stations to deal with instances of honour killings, and wondered how such special teams could have been nominated in all the 1,300 police stations across the State.

The bench was also not impressed by the submission made by the Additional Government Pleader E Manoharan that special branches were designated in police stations even before the Shakti Vahini case in which the Supreme Court had issued guidelines to check unlawful interference in the lives of inter-faith and inter-caste couples by khap panchayats. Now, added the advocate, they have been given special instructions to report on honour killing cases as well.

Leading the bench, Justice Manikumar observed that this would indicate that the submission made in status report about special teams existing in every police station to curb honour killing was incorrect. “Using the phrase ‘nominated to look after’ incidents of honour killings gives the impression that the special branches were specially nominated for these incidents while in reality they are not.”

“Where are these instructions given to special branches to deal with honour killing,” the bench queried, noting that the status report failed to reveal any concrete submission on actions taken by such special branch officers, including the number of honour killing cases reported.

Further, slamming the State for a vague submission that 34 honour killings have been registered without revealing the year when it happened, the bench sought to know whether the State could show a single report that was received from a special branch about an honour killing.

Also, on the submission that departmental action was initiated against four police officials for dereliction of duty, the bench raised the aspect of inadequacy of penalty imposed on officials failing to act against honour killings. It also sought to know as to why such officials, who effectively aided and abetted the crime, were only penalised with postponement of their increment while the persons whocommitted the crime were charged with murder.

Also pulling up the State authorities over the lack of any visible sensitisation measures against the practice of honour killing, the bench posted the case for further hearing to Wednesday when an interim order is likelyto be passed.