INDIA: Inter-caste marriages attract familial vengeance and apathy from authorities

Dear Friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from Love Commandos, a New-Delhi based volunteer organization dedicated to assisting couples who face familial or societal opposition to their marriages regarding the case of Uma Bharti and Ravi Kant Meena, who married of their own free will, and are now being violently separated by the families, while the police and court are indifferent to their plight. 

Case Narrative:

Around five years ago, Uma Bharti, a 22-year old woman from the Brahmin Community, met and fell in love with Ravi Kant Meena, a 24-year-old from a Scheduled Tribe. Due to the differences in their caste, both families opposed their relationship and their desire to marry each other. On 28 January 2017, Uma, who was undergoing Basic Teacher Training in Jaipur, was called back to her hometown of Narharpu. When she returned, she was illegally detained by her family and not allowed to go outside. The couple had made telephone plans to elope, both of them being adults above the age of 18 years. On 5 February 2017, Uma managed to leave her home and returned with Ravi to Jaipur, where they both hid for some days before getting married in Ghaziabad on February 10. The marriage was ultimately registered on February 13, after which the couple went to Saharanpur, where Ravi’s ailing father lived. Uma’s parents were informed of their arrival by Ravi’s father, as they had come to the area many times in search of their daughter.

On February 14, Uma’s parents and some of Ravi’s relatives reached Saharanpur, and the couple was surrounded by a gang of about 15 hostile persons. Ravi was physically restrained by the gang, and Uma was gagged, dragged away by her hair, with her arms and legs bounds. She was thrown into a vehicle and driven away by her parents, who once more confined her illegally. Ravi was taken back to Jaipur by his relatives, and not permitted to contact or meet anyone. Ravi eventually managed to find a means of communication, through which he contacted the organization Love Commandos. The group took up the issue with central and state government authorities, but no action was taken. The local Sub-Divisional Magistrate was reluctant to rescue Uma from her confinement. It was only nearly three months later, on April 25, that the police rescued Uma before she was forcibly married to another person, pursuant to the DGP being contacted. 

Uma’s statement to the police confirmed illegal confinement and physical violence at the hands of her family members. She also confirmed that she had voluntarily married Ravi. She was forced to sit in the police station for 38 hours, after which she was presented to a Judicial Magistrate in Court, who further handed her over to another advocate, who recorded her statement. Uma was informed that she was only permitted to leave in the custody of a male i.e. her father or husband. As her husband was unable to take her due to fear of retaliation from her family members, she was forced to leave with her father, who was accused of illegally detaining her. After going into her father’s custody, she again complained of being subjected to violence, and had to be rescued by the police on May 27. The same cycle of being forced to return to a male guardian’s care repeated itself after she recorded her statement on June 23. Ravi continues to be under the care and protection of Love Commandos, as he lives in fear of being killed in the name of honour. Both Uma and Ravi are victims of regressive social attitudes towards caste and gender and bureaucratic apathy.

Additional Information:

Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, no person may be deprived of their “life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law”. Additionally, Article 19 (1)(d) provides persons with the freedom to move freely within the territory of India. In pursuance of this, Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalizes the act of forcibly confining a person within a specified boundary, while Section 342 prescribes a punishment of up to one year and/or a fine of up to one thousand rupees for any person found guilty of violating this law. Both Ravi and Uma’s family members may be held liable for the same.

The actions of Uma’s family also fall under the purview of Section 366 of the IPC, which criminalizes the kidnapping of a woman to force her into marriage. Due to her already being married to another man, this act of preparing to conduct her marriage to a second person means that Uma’s family is also guilty of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-A of the IPC, as bigamy is a punishable offence under Section 494. Additionally, the members of Ravi’s family who were involved in the assault of the couple, will be jointly liable with Uma’s family members under Section 350 of the IPC for using criminal force against the couple.

Police officers are duty-bound to take complaints made by members of the public seriously, especially when the complaint relates to the safety and security of a woman. Under Rule 3-A of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, no government servant may willingly cause delay when dealing with a matter before him, while Rule 3-B mandates that all such personnel must “observe the Government’s policies regarding prevention of crime against women”. Similarly, the SDM also violated these Rules by refusing to take cognizance of the matter for a three-month period, resulting in a massive infringement of Uma’s rights.

Despite the offences of wrongful confinement and kidnapping being cognizable offences which were made out in Uma’s complaints to the police, there has been no inquiry or any information on the registering of an FIR against the members of her family. This is in violation of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 2 SCC 1] that an FIR must mandatorily be registered where information is received about the commission of a cognizable offence. The police officers and the SDM involved have also failed to fulfil their duties under Section 5 of the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act (PWD Act), which required them to inform Uma of her right to protection orders and a Protection Officer under the Act.

The case also violates Uma and Ravi’s rights to equal protection of the law under the International Covenant on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the rights to liberty and security of person under Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The attempted forced marriage by Uma’s family also violates Article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), under which all women should have the right to choose their spouse.

Background

According to a study conducted by Princeton University, only 11% of all Indian marriages are inter-caste. Despite caste discrimination being illegal for the past 70 years, there has not been much progress in uprooting deeply entrenched prejudices against lower caste communities. The majority of inter-caste marriages take place in urban areas, with most of these matches occurring after a protracted period of courtship. It is extremely rare for families to willingly arrange an inter-caste match. Despite this, the Indian state has been unwilling to properly address the issue of caste discrimination, and has attempted to escape international attention on the matter. In its report to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, India claimed that caste was an “internal issue”, and refused to classify it as a form of racial discrimination, despite it being defined as discrimination on the basis of “race, colour or descent” in Article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

The consequences of flouting rigid caste norms are quite severe. A large number of honour killings due to subversion of these norms have been documented, the most famous of which was the 2007 murder of Manoj Banwala and Babli, a Haryanvi couple who were brutally murdered after they married despite familial opposition. These killings are often conducted by members of the couple’s family, in an effort to preserve their sense of honour by ‘eliminating’ the source of the perceived dishonour. There is also empirical evidence to suggest that women are often coerced into filing complaints of rape, kidnapping, and forcible marriage against their partners, to avoid recrimination from family members. Amnesty International has documented instances of inter-caste marriages resulting in violence from members of the upper-caste in their 2015 report on Caste Discrimination in India.

The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment noted that atrocities against lower-caste persons have a dismal rate of reporting and conviction; according to the Annual Report on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 for the year 2004, nearly 85 percent of the cases brought under the SC/ST Act end in acquittal at all levels, with only 21.72 percent of all registered cases being fully disposed, of which a dismal 15.71 percent have ended in conviction. The combination of negligent police forces and immense societal prejudice has contributed to the existence of an intolerant atmosphere for inter-caste couples.

Suggested Action:

It is apparent that both Uma’s and Ravi’s families have committed several criminal offences, and that the local SDM and police force are complicit in endangering the lives of the couple as well. Please write letters to the following authorities calling on them to investigate this particular case, and to also address the issue of local authorities brushing off requests for security from inter-caste couples.

The AHRC is writing separate letters to the UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues and the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and to the UN Committee on Racial Discrimination. 

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER