The Karnataka freedom of choice in marriage and the prevention and prohibition of crimes in the
The Name of Honor and Tradition (Eva Nammava Eva Nammava) Act, 2026, passed by the Karnataka Legislature, criminalizes violence in the name of honor. The aim is to prevent harassment, coercion or threats from family or community members that hinder the personal decision to marry. The case of Manya Patila pregnant woman who was beaten to death by her family because of her marriage to a Dalit man prompted the government to enact the law.
The case of Manya Patil, a pregnant woman who was beaten to death by her family because of her marriage to a Dalit man, prompted the government to enact the law.
The law aims to ensure that the constitutional promise of individual freedom, autonomy and the right to freely choose a partner is accessible to all. This is particularly important in a country like India, where honor-based violence is justified in the name of caste and patriarchal ideas of familial shame and honor. Young couples who marry outside their caste often face social boycott, alienation and harassment. Women are disproportionately affected by honor-related violence patriarchal ideas about honor are associated with marriages, resulting in little attention being paid to their individual choices. Men from marginalized communities are also at risk due to unequal power structures.
The law recognizes that endogamy maintains the caste system and recognizes the role of intercaste marriages in overcoming casteism and strengthening social equality. According to the law, violence in the name of honor is a non-criminal offense and it also provides for the creation of fast-track courts. The law also requires officials to be responsible for protecting vulnerable couples, enforcing the law effectively, and investigating cases appropriately. It also stipulates that the government should maintain safe houses, helplines, monitoring committees and Eva Nammava Vedikes – district-level bodies comprising officials who help solemnize inter-caste marriages – to ensure that couples can marry as per their wishes.
The limits of legal intervention
Honor violence in India is deeply rooted in structural inequalities, patriarchal norms, endogamy and gender constructs. Women’s freedom to choose their marriage partner is determined more by ideas of social and cultural hierarchies than by individual rights.
Cultural nationalism valorizes caste purity and control over female sexuality. Addressing honor violence requires culturally sensitive, participatory interventions that actively involve women, as the law is limited in deterring socioculturally sanctioned crimes. The Karnataka law is focused on institutional responsiveness, which limits feminist governance unless complemented by structural interventions. The backlash the state of Kerala faced Making it easier for women to get started A notable example of such restrictions is entry into the Sabarimala temple after judicial intervention without socio-cultural engagement.
The Karnataka law is focused on institutional responsiveness, which limits feminist governance unless complemented by structural interventions.
The Karnataka law does not provide a separate offense to combat honor violence as Indian law already penalizes such violence, coercion and harassment. However, in its current form, the law fails to provide clear definitions of concepts such as family, tradition, honor, consent, coercion and community, among others.
Therefore, identifying cases of honor violence is limited in this legal ambiguity. For example, it becomes difficult to prove what constitutes coercion when that coercion involves psychological pressure exerted on victims over a period of time. Such ambiguities complicate reporting and lead to gaps in enforcement.
Findings from the UK
The effectiveness of such a law can be understood by looking at the UK’s experience with the criminalization of forced marriages. The case of a 17-year-old British-Pakistani girl, Shafilea Ahmedwho was murdered by her parents in 2003 because she resisted a forced marriage, attracted significant legal and public attention in Britain. In 2012, Ahmed’s parents were charged with murder and found guilty.
However, although police viewed the murder as an honor killing, the perpetrators could not be charged with honor violence as there is no separate law in the UK to prosecute such crimes. Although earlier this year a new legal definition formally clarified what “Abuse in the name of honor‘, which includes Forced marriages, domestic violence and sexual harassmentamong other crimes.
Forced marriage has been a criminal offense in the UK since 2014. The law is enforced by the Forced Marriage Department (FMU)that provides support for forced marriages, and a multi-agency model involving police, schools, courts and social services with clear protocols and coordination. However, the Karnataka Act does not provide for such a coordination body or a binding inter-agency strategy.
Through in Great Britain Forced Marriage Protection Orders (FMPOs)Courts can free victims from dangerous situations by imposing contact and travel restrictions on perpetrators, allowing them to act before harm occurs. Karnataka also offers civil protection through interim injunctions and protection orders. However, such injunctions are civil court orders intended to prevent interference with intercaste marriages through police protection, whereas FMPOs are specialized legal orders that can confiscate passports and restrict freedom of movement, ensuring robust and integrated enforcement.
Since the Karnataka law establishes fast-track courts, the state could potentially mandate these courts to issue FMPO-style protective orders to prevent honor violence. However, whether this will be the case remains to be seen. Karnataka law also mandates safe accommodation for rehabilitation, but monitoring the effectiveness of such accommodation is a key concern. Couples facing family or community threats may also be reluctant to seek government shelters for fear of being identified and facing stigma. Furthermore, Eva Nammava Vedikes might also face limitations in celebrating inter-caste marriages as their effectiveness depends heavily on local officials, who are themselves subject to prevailing socio-cultural biases.
However, the Karnataka law has another glaring limitation. It focuses only on heterosexual caste marriages, and such selective protection inadvertently indicates which types of relationships are legitimate by reinforcing social hierarchies around acceptable forms of love.
There is another glaring limitation in the Karnataka Act. It focuses only on heterosexual caste marriages, and such selective protection inadvertently indicates which types of relationships are legitimate by reinforcing social hierarchies around acceptable forms of love.
The Karnataka Act needs to clarify definitions of concepts through amendments to prevent inconsistent interpretations. The law must require emergency protective orders to restrict perpetrators and prevent honor violence. Hotlines, safe accommodation and counseling must be facilitated through coordinated action in schools and colleges with the help of non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders. A multi-agency framework for cultural awareness, timely reporting and effective enforcement must be established. Ultimately, for the law to be truly beneficial to all, it should seek to expand its definition of inter-caste marriages beyond heterosexual couples.
Dr. Parvathy Poornima teaches at St. Joseph’s University, Bengaluru. Her research areas includeDiaspora studies and the experiences of South Asians in the UK. She holds a PhD from JNU.She is a full-time mother who pursues her career and passion with perseverance.
