Extra-constitutional social boycotts violate fundamental rights, necessitating state policy and specific legislative intervention.

The High Court considered a batch of writ and miscellaneous petitions involving petitioners from various districts in Rajasthan (including Sirohi, Barmer, Jodhpur, and Nagaur) who were subjected to social boycott and extra-constitutional sanctions by self-styled "Caste Panchayats" or "Khap Panchayats"

Common grievances included the imposition of "Hukka-Pani band" (social ostracism), exorbitant monetary penalties (dand) for inter-caste or self-choice marriages, and interference in personal autonomy under the guise of customary rules

Petitioners alleged that despite approaching the police, FIRs were either not registered or investigations were ineffective due to the influence of community leaders

The Court had previously appointed a Commission of Advocates to investigate the ground reality, which reported a pervasive pattern of coercive social control and a "legislative vacuum" in Rajasthan regarding social boycott

1. Whether the extra-constitutional diktats and social boycotts imposed by Khap Panchayats violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution?

2. Whether the State has an affirmative duty under Article 21 to protect citizens from threats to life and liberty posed by private community actors?

3. Whether existing penal provisions (IPC/BNS) are sufficient to address the structural and collective nature of social ostracism in the absence of specific state legislation?

The Court relied on the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that the right to choose a life partner is an intrinsic facet of personal liberty and dignity

It primarily applied the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), which declared Khap diktats illegal and prescribed preventive, remedial, and punitive measures

The Court further invoked the principle from Kaushal Kishor v. State of UP (2023) regarding the State's affirmative duty to protect citizens from private actors

Finally, it utilized the doctrine from Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan to issue judicial directions in the presence of a legislative vacuum

The Court observed that Khap Panchayats function as parallel, extra-constitutional power centers that usurp legal authority to enforce regressive social norms

It reasoned that social boycott is not merely a social issue but a "civil death" that strips individuals of their economic and social existence, violating constitutional morality

The Court found that while Shakti Vahini mandates the registration of FIRs, the current penal framework (IPC/BNS) is inadequate because it lacks a specific offence for "social boycott," often forcing police to use ill-fitting provisions like extortion (Sec 384 IPC) or criminal intimidation (Sec 506 IPC)

Drawing an analogy to the abolition of Sati, the Court held that traditional customs must yield to the rule of law

Since Rajasthan has not enacted a specific law against social boycott (unlike Maharashtra), the Court determined it was necessary to invoke its Article 226 jurisdiction to provide a robust institutional mechanism for victim protection and monitoring

2. Institutional Mechanism: The State must appoint District Nodal Officers and establish a centralized State-level monitoring cell to track social boycott incidents

3. Investigation: The Director General of Police is directed to appoint a senior officer (not below Additional SP rank) to conduct a consolidated, fair investigation into all related FIRs within 90 days

4. Policy Formulation: The State Government is directed to formulate a comprehensive "Policy Framework" and "Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)" to deal with extra-legal community sanctions

5. Legislative Suggestion: The Court strongly suggested that the Rajasthan Legislature enact a specific law criminalizing the issuance and enforcement of social boycott diktats