THE ILLUSION OF DETERRENCE: STATUTORY GAPS, THE “CULTURAL DEFENCE,” AND THE PROSECUTION OF HONOUR CRIMES IN INDIA

AUTHORS – PRIYANSHI SINGH* & DR. ROSHNI SRIVASTAVA**

* STUDENT AT AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW CAMPUS

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW CAMPUS

BEST CITATION – PRIYANSHI SINGH & DR. ROSHNI SRIVASTAVA, THE ILLUSION OF DETERRENCE: STATUTORY GAPS, THE “CULTURAL DEFENCE,” AND THE PROSECUTION OF HONOUR CRIMES IN INDIA, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (3) OF 2026, PG. 571-581, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.

ABSTRACT

This research paper critically evaluates the systemic implementation failures of India’s criminal justice framework in addressing collective violence, specifically mob lynching and honour killings, against the backdrop of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Despite sweeping federal legislative overhauls, these structural crimes persist due to deep-seated socio-cultural biases, institutional reluctance, and stark statutory ambiguities.

The study highlights how police apathy, the deliberate dilution of First Information Reports (FIRs) to obscure hate motives, and the pervasive intimidation of witnesses culminate in statistically alarming acquittal rates. Furthermore, the paper analyses the deeply flawed judicial application of the “grave and sudden provocation” doctrine. This legal principle frequently operates as a “cultural defence” that mitigates murder charges in honour crimes, legally normalizing patriarchal violence while paradoxically failing to protect female victims of sustained domestic abuse.

By contrasting progressive state-level legislative experiments in Rajasthan and Karnataka which were ultimately paralyzed by federal constitutional vetoes with the overarching BNS framework, the analysis exposes critical statutory gaps. Notably, Section 103(2) of the BNS introduces a highly flawed five-person threshold for mob lynching and entirely omits the preventive, remedial, and victim-compensation mandates previously ordered by the Supreme Court in the landmark Tehseen S. Poonawalla judgment.

Ultimately, the paper concludes that relying on general penal provisions to prosecute organized, identity-driven violence emboldens a culture of majoritarian impunity. It recommends fundamental systemic overhauls, including eliminating arbitrary numerical thresholds in the BNS, statutorily codifying “sustained provocation,” and rigidly integrating Supreme Court guidelines to effectively dismantle vigilante justice.