Parties and roles: Shakti Vahini is the petitioner who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Union of India & Ors. is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is a constitutional writ proceeding. Khap or community assemblies sometimes opposed marriages within the same gotra, outside caste or against family wishes, leading to threats, confinement and killings labelled 'honour' crimes. Couples exercising lawful choice often lacked immediate police protection. The case asked how the State must prevent collective bodies from substituting social commands for individual liberty. Procedural and real-world context: 2010: NGO petitioned against honour crimes and khap interference. | Government and States supplied responses. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve can community bodies interfere with an adult's choice of spouse? What preventive, protective and punitive steps must governments take against honour crimes? The outcome mattered immediately because the Court held that the consent of family, clan or community is irrelevant to the marriage choice of two adults. Assemblies intending to condemn or prevent such marriage are unlawful. Procedural setting: 2010: NGO petitioned against honour crimes and khap interference. | Government and States supplied responses. | 27 Mar 2018: Court issued preventive, remedial and punitive directions pending legislation. The central problem before the Court was can community bodies interfere with an adult's choice of spouse? What preventive, protective and punitive steps must governments take against honour crimes? The controversy was considered in the framework of Indian Penal Code; Code of Criminal Procedure; Special Marriage Act, 1954, together with Constitution arts.14, 19 and 21. The wider importance of the case lies in choice of spouse; dignity; autonomy; constitutional supremacy over social morality; positive protective duty.

Petitioner: any assembly threatening consenting adults or obstructing marriage is illegal; dedicated preventive and protective machinery is required. | Governments: existing penal law covered violence, while local customs and law-and-order administration required State-specific handling. Competing positions in context: Shakti Vahini's position: as the petitioner, Shakti Vahini sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Choice of spouse; dignity; autonomy; constitutional supremacy over social morality; positive protective duty. Union of India & Ors.'s position: as respondent, Union of India & Ors. resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Indian Penal Code; Code of Criminal Procedure; Special Marriage Act, 1954 and Constitution arts.14, 19 and 21, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

The Court held that the consent of family, clan or community is irrelevant to the marriage choice of two adults. Assemblies intending to condemn or prevent such marriage are unlawful. District nodal officers, safe houses, threat assessment, police protection, prompt FIRs, security for trials, accountability of officials and fast-track proceedings were directed until legislation is enacted. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Choice of spouse; dignity; autonomy; constitutional supremacy over social morality; positive protective duty and binds the parties to the operative directions made in W.P.(C) No. 231/2010. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Indian Penal Code; Code of Criminal Procedure; Special Marriage Act, 1954. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Indian Penal Code; Code of Criminal Procedure; Special Marriage Act, 1954

Constitution arts.14, 19 and 21

Choice of spouse; dignity; autonomy; constitutional supremacy over social morality; positive protective duty