Anchal, an M.A. student and a resident of Igra village, Jind district, posted a video on social media satirising khap panchayats, the powerful but unelected community bodies dominated by elderly men from landowning communities in Haryana. Imagining what a “Gen Z panchayat” might look like, she suggests in the video that elderly men face restrictions on playing cards, smoking hookahs and bidis, and wasting time, while tobacco sellers be fined. The money collected through such fines, she jokes, could be used to replace phones damaged or confiscated from girls.

Anchal was responding to a controversy that exploded after a khap panchayat member, Virender Dhull, a resident of Ikkas village in Haryana, made a remark about young women at the Naugama khap meeting in Jind on August 1. The comment that went viral was about women riding pillion with their fathers on two-wheelers, their legs astride, while using mobile phones and wearing clothes the khap thought unsuitable. He said their phones should be smashed. Dhull, a director of physical education at Jat Senior Secondary School in Jind, was hit by social-media criticism. 

Over the past few weeks, several khap panchayats across parts of north Haryana have unleashed a series of resolutions, many against women. The khaps have opposed marriages within the community and live-in and same-sex relationships, while also resolving to fight drug abuse, online betting, and obscene social-media content.

Khap leaders insist they are not issuing diktats. They describe themselves as community elders offering guidance to the youth, and argue that their goal is to preserve social cohesion and protect families. Except, ostracisation will be a penalty for those who disregard these social rules. And the rules are targeted primarily at young women. 

To many, especially the social-media-vocal Gen Z, the khaps’ message sounded like an attempt to regulate their personal choices in the name of tradition. 

“Why are concerns over culture and social behaviour directed primarily at girls? If these restrictions are genuinely meant to protect society and preserve our culture, they should apply equally to men,” Anchal says.

Young women see the controversy as an enduring culture of social control over female agency, and have posted videos against the diktats. Several men too, like rapper Rahul Fazilpuria and content creator Paras Yadav, too, took to social media to condemn the resolution. 

Naugama khap president, Jaivir Lohan, however, says Dhull’s remarks have been misrepresented. He maintains that the khap has not banned mobile phones for girls or prescribed what women should or shouldn’t wear. Parents, he says, should decide what is appropriate for their children, and the khap will intervene only if parents seek its help. 

“The views expressed during the panchayat on women’s clothing and use of mobile phones was an individual’s opinion,” Lohan says. The Naugama khap has 42 members, all male.

Haryana’s over 130 khap panchayats have long carried an image of being stuck in time. Their decisions have frequently been criticised for restricting women’s autonomy, particularly their freedom to choose whom to marry, who to associate with, and how to live. They have largely kept women away from decision-making roles. 

Khap state of mind

On August 9, 24 khap panchayats met in Jind’s Kandela village. Here, they passed a resolution disallowing women and men from marrying within the same gotra (clan) or cluster that their khap panchayats oversee. This diktat is based on their belief that its members are one extended social family. However, people are free to choose who they marry beyond this boundary. 

Chanderbhan Nambardar, a khap member, says people within this network are considered brothers and sisters, irrespective of caste differences and, in some cases, gotra distinctions. For the khap, therefore, a marriage within these prohibited social boundaries is seen as a relationship crossing what the community considers a kinship boundary. Lohan says that same-gotra marriages lead to genetic disorders and weak offspring, because of a common gene pool. 

The consequences, if the khap panchayat is disobeyed, are severe. Nambardar says that if a woman and a man who come under the 24 khap panchayats disobey, they will not be allowed to enter the area under their community-appointed jurisdiction. He acknowledges that the khaps have no legal authority, though.

The khaps also passed a resolution banning live-in and same-sex relationships, and content they felt was obscene, while also urging the government to regulate marriage by choice, or love marriages, as they are called in India.

Raghubir Nain, president of the Sarvjatiya Binain khap, in Jind, says the panchayat did not oppose love marriages, but wanted them to take place with parental consent and within accepted social norms. He refers to live-in and same-sex relationships as a “nai beemari (new disease)” in society. The Naugama khap has made similar demands.

Naugama khap spokesperson Umed Jaglan says they want the government to examine the social consequences of live-in relationships, particularly where a married person leaves a spouse and children to live with another partner. The khap argues that such relationships can damage families and traditional social institutions. 

Khap leaders also say women are being included more in decision-making now, through special assemblies and women’s wings aimed at addressing social issues. 

On August 23 in Jind, the Naugama khap panchayat convened its first ever women-led mahapanchayat. They too passed resolutions against love marriages and live-in relationships, but also against dowry and gun culture. A 21-member committee will spread the word and ensure compliance. 

At a mahapanchayat, held in July at the Meham Chaubisi Chabutra in Rohtak, participants adopted resolutions against drug abuse, online betting, obscene social-media content, and the glorification of guns online. The gathering also decided to eliminate the use of hookah at community functions — an especially striking move in a State where the hookah has long been a symbol of rural social interaction. The mahapanchayat was chaired by Chaubisi Khap president Subhash Goyat and attended by prominent local artists, including Ajay Hooda.

Khap leaders say these social issues they take up rarely receive the same attention as their positions on marriage and relationships. Nambardar argues the khaps are “guiding lights” for the youth. 

Gen Z hits back

On her YouTube channel, Leena Sharma (leena_yuvan7240) criticises what she describes the khap diktats, questioning how restrictions on women’s clothing, mobility, and behaviour can be imposed in the 21st century. She points out that women sitting astride a motorcycle is a matter of safety. She also questions khap resolutions, such as not allowing DJ music at weddings, asking why community bodies should dictate personal choices. Her larger argument is generational: cities may be changing, she says, but villages need to change too.

On Instagram, Garima (@garima.sees) talks about how the khaps were claiming that this was done to save “culture”, but it was just to control women. In a Reel with the caption “One of the reasons why Haryana is developing backwards,” she says the State grapples with one of the highest youth unemployment ratios and one of the lowest sex ratios in India. “Meanwhile, Haryana’s male youth is involved in drugs and crime, but no such panchayat is held for the betterment of these people. Na unkay liye kuch ban kiya jaata hai, aur na unkay liye kuch rules banaye jaate hain (Nothing for them is banned, nor are there any rules made for them),” she says on the video.

It’s not just women speaking against the diktat. Aman Kashyap, who holds a master’s degree in journalism from a university in Jind, asks, “When the Constitution grants girls equal rights, how can a panchayat decide to smash their phones or restrict their movements?” He calls these diktats illegal and contrary to fundamental rights, including the freedom of movement, expression, and privacy. He stresses that the views of a few khap members should not be seen as those of all of Haryana, noting that many students and their parents too had opposed the decisions. 

Krishan Dalal, a reel creator with nearly 27.8k followers on his Instagram account @iamkrishan7, clocked 747k views on his post on the subject. In the Reel with some mixed messaging, he says, “Actually, ye buddhay hain gay (Actually, these old men are gay),” adding that, “Before they die, they want to come out of the closet….” He also says, with some misunderstanding, “Ye low testosterone mard ki pehli pehchaan hoya kare, ki jab kahin uska bas nahi chalta toh aurat ne sanskar aur sabhyachaar sikhane nikileya kare wo. (The first sign of a low-testosterone man is that when he cannot assert his authority anywhere else, he sets out to teach women about values and civilisation).”

Critics, however, point out that societal relationships are governed through individual rights and the law, rather than through community sanctions. A YouTube channel FlicksUnpacked has uploaded a Short under the title “Huge Decision by Haryana Khap on Love Marriages”. It addresses Khap members as “so-called dadajis (paternal grandfathers)”, accusing them of seeking attention and social-media fame. 

The clip reflects a wider generational tension in Haryana and elsewhere: traditional community-based institutions continue to assert authority over matters of relationships and social conduct, while the youth increasingly uses digital platforms to challenge those norms and demand greater autonomy, equality, and individual rights.

Customs versus law

As they sit in a circle in a building set on 5 acres of land in Ramrai village, some of the men feel India’s laws must be in tandem with Haryana’s social customs. 

“Couples entering into these relationships, which are against our social customs, are given security by law-enforcing agencies,” Jaglan says, referring to safe houses set up by the government to protect couples who have been socially ostracised and whose lives are sometimes in danger. 

Jaglan says the Naugama khap has actively approached political and legal authorities seeking changes to the law. According to him, more than two years ago, a delegation first met then Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar, and later, in January 2025, met Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. Among its demands were changes to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, restrictions on same-gotra and same-village marriages, and legal action against live-in and same-sex relationships. Jaglan says the delegation was assured that its concerns would be placed before the Union Cabinet, but that no further action or response followed.

The khap also demanded changing the legal marriage age for women, with Jaglan recalling that some members had proposed reducing it from 18 to 16. He also points to its history of approaching political and judicial authorities, including earlier meetings with former Haryana Chief Ministers Devi Lal and Bansi Lal, as well as a representation before the Supreme Court.

The khap leaders see matters such as drugs, guns, and dowry as being interconnected with other parts of the social order, like marriage and relationships. Their critics see a dangerous blurring of the line between community advice and coercion.

Anti-women accusations

Nambardar rejects the accusation that khaps are anti-women. He points to the wider political system to explain why women remain under-represented in khap leadership. “Women became sarpanches in Haryana only in the 1980s,” he says, questioning the gap between political promises and reality. “Every political party talks about 33% reservation for women, but how many women are actually in the State Assemblies and Parliament?”

According to him, the problem runs deeper than the khaps themselves. Indian society, he says, continues to be patriarchal, with women still under-represented in politics, government, and employment. “So naturally, there are fewer women in khaps as well. But their representation is growing fast.” 

Nambardar argues that several decisions taken by khaps have received support from women. For instance, during the wrestlers’ protest, when several women wrestlers from Haryana had accused BJP leader Brijbhushan Singh of sexual abuse, the khaps stood by the women. 

The khap remains rooted in a Haryana where village identity, kinship, honour, and collective decision-making continue to carry enormous weight. But it operates alongside Gen Z that is increasingly connected to cities, smartphones, social media, new forms of work and relationships, and a legal system built around individual rights. That collision is producing uncomfortable questions on both sides.

In the first four months of 2026, Haryana’s Sex Ratio at Birth plummeted to 898 girls for every 1,000 boys.

The story so far: In Dr Lokesh B.H. & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Anr, decided on August 3, 2026, the Supreme Court considered whether Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) could apply to a man in a live-in relationship and whether the expression “husband” under the section is confined to a legally valid marriage.

The appellant argued that since he and the complainant were never validly married, Section 498A could not apply to him. The Karnataka High Court had rejected this argument and refused to quash the criminal proceedings against him. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

Rejecting the argument, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held that the protection under Section 498A is not confined to legally married women. It can also extend to women in live-in relationships that are “in the nature of marriage”, subject to certain conditions.

What is Section 498A of IPC?

The provision now corresponds to Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced Section 498A of the IPC. It deals with husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. It reads that whoever — being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman — subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

For the purposes of this section, “cruelty means” (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

What is the ruling?

The Supreme Court held that the protection against domestic cruelty under Section 498A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) is not confined to legally married women. It ruled that the provision also applies to live-in relationships that qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage”, provided there is an intention to marry.

The court clarified that not every live-in relationship would attract Section 498A. The protection is available only to relationships between two consenting adults that meet the legal test of a relationship in the nature of marriage. It also made clear that this expanded interpretation is limited to Section 498A and does not automatically extend to other statutory provisions.

Rejecting the argument that Section 498A, being a penal provision, should apply only to legally married couples, the Bench held that the law must be interpreted in a manner that advances its object of preventing domestic cruelty.

“The interpretation given to this penal provision must be an interpretation which keeps in view the reformative objective, or else its mandate will be defeated.”

At the same time, the court recognised concerns over misuse of Section 498A. It held that the initial burden of establishing that the relationship was in the nature of marriage and carried an intention to marry would lie on the woman seeking protection.

It also directed that the safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) must be strictly followed and that no partner or relative should be arrested without complying with those safeguards.

The Bench remarked: “In all cases, A and B chose each other and decided to live life together. The only difference is that in the first case they are married and in the other two they are not. Why should there be any difference in the protection that is given to a woman if she faces cruelty at the hands of the husband/partner or his family members? The law fairly well recognises the right and freedom of an individual to choose the person they want to be with as an inextricable part of dignity and personal liberty.”

Is protection under the Domestic Violence Act enough?

The court referred to Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), wherein it was recognised that though a live-in relationship between two consenting adults is not an offence, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was enacted “to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women” by covering couples in a relationship in the nature of marriage.

The court held that although the DV Act is a piece of comprehensive welfare legislation addressing various forms of domestic violence, its overall character is civil, whereas Section 498A creates criminal liability.

Drawing a clear distinction between civil and criminal consequences, the court held that it would be “a misstatement of law” to regard the DV Act as providing adequate protection equivalent to Section 498A IPC. While the DV Act primarily carries civil and monetary consequences, Section 498A is backed by the force of criminal deterrence. Except for punishment under Section 31 for violation of protection orders, the DV Act does not create criminal liability for acts of domestic violence themselves. Consequently, the availability of remedies under the DV Act cannot justify denying women in qualifying relationships the protection of Section 498A IPC.

Since Section 498A is penal in nature, the court narrowed the protection by requiring proof of intent to marry. It said this requirement would separate relationships protected under the DV Act from those attracting criminal liability under Section 498A.

The court underscored: “When the intent is absent, a question beckons as to why such relationship needs to be equated with marriage for the purposes of invoking penal provisions. In our view, it does not. Those relationships that are in the nature of marriage and also have the requisite intent to marry are the closest to marriage itself, and it is those relationships that shall be entitled to the protection of this Section.”

The Court concluded that “Cruelty, any which way, does not check at the door, whether the house it enters is that of a married woman or not. Once it enters, its propensity to destroy is aggravated.”

What qualifies as a relationship in the nature of marriage?

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has mentioned “relationship in the nature of marriage” in section 2(f). It says, “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family”

The court in the case of D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal(2010) observed that “relationship in the nature of marriage is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married, the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses and must be of legal age to marry. They must also be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried. They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time. In our opinion, a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the 2005 Act must also fulfil the above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a “shared household” as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act.”

The Supreme Court reiterated that there is no straightjacket formula to determine whether a live-in relationship amounts to a “relationship in the nature of marriage”. Referring to its decision in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), it said the factors are illustrative and not exhaustive, and each case would have to be decided on its own facts.

According to the court, a qualifying relationship would ordinarily involve the couple living together for a reasonable period, sharing a common household, and demonstrating financial interdependence, such as maintaining joint bank accounts, jointly acquiring property or making long-term investments. It may also involve shared domestic responsibilities, with the partners jointly managing the household and everyday life.

The court also said that the nature of the relationship should reflect a marriage-like partnership. It includes an intimate and emotional relationship, having and raising children together, and holding themselves out to society as husband and wife. Ultimately, the common intention and conduct of the parties, including how they understood their relationship and their respective roles and responsibilities, would be a key factor in determining whether it is a “relationship in the nature of marriage”.

Prayagraj:

Although live-in relationships have no social sanction, the youths’ attraction to it demands there must be devised some framework or solution to save “moral values” of the society, the Allahabad High Court has observed.

Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava made the observation while granting bail to Varanasi-based Akash Keshari, who was booked under various sections of IPC and SC/ST Act for allegedly establishing physical relations with a woman on pretext of marriage.

Keshari allegedly refused to marry the person, who approached Sarnath Police Station of Varanasi district.

“So far as the live-in relationship is concerned, it has got no social sanction but since the youth is attracted to such relations because a young person, male or female, can easily escape from his or her liability to his or her partner, their attraction is rapidly increasing in favour of such relations.

“It is high time we all thought and tried to find out some framework and solution to save the moral values of the society,” the court observed while granting bail to the applicant.

Earlier, Keshari’s counsel argued that the prosecution’s story was false as the woman was a major and the relationship between them was consensual.

It was also submitted that she was in a live-in relationship with the appellant for about six years and the alleged abortion never happened.

The lawyer also submitted that the accused never promised to marry the woman. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Chandigarh:

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that granting protection to married people who want to be in live-in relationships with their partners would amount to encouraging “wrongdoers” and promoting the practice of bigamy.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil also observed that such couples, who run away from their parental homes, not only bring a bad name to their families but also violate the right of their parents to live with dignity and honour.

The court order came following several petitions, including one filed by a 40-year-old woman and a 44-year-old man, demanding protection due to a “threat” from their families.

Both of them are living together despite the fact that the man is married and both of them have children.

The woman has taken divorce from her husband.

The court said it is of the view that the petitioners were fully aware that they were married earlier and that they could not have entered into a live-in relationship.

“Further, the petitioner no. 2 (the man) has not taken divorce from his earlier wife. All live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage,” the court observed.

If the court holds that the relationship between the petitioners is in the nature of a marriage, it will be injustice to the wife and children of the man, it said.

The court said marriage is entering into a relationship that has public significance as well.

“The institutions of marriage and family are important social institutions that provide for the security and bear an important role in the rearing of children. The celebration of a marriage gives rise to moral and legal obligations, particularly the reciprocal duty of support placed upon spouses and their joint responsibility for supporting and raising children born out of the wedlock,” it observed.

“Under Article 21 of the Constitution, each and every individual has a right to live with peace, dignity and honour, therefore by allowing such type of petitions, we are encouraging the wrongdoers and somewhere, promoting the practice of bigamy, which is otherwise an offence under section 494, IPC, further violating the right of the other spouse and children under Article 21 to live with dignity.

“The concept of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and the petitioners, by running away from their parental homes, are not only bringing a bad name to the families but also violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour,” the court said.

The court further said, “Merely because two persons are living together for a few days, their claim of live-in relationship based upon a bald averment may not be enough to hold that they are truly in a live-in-relationship, and directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relationship.” “In our diverse country, marriage as a social tie is … essential in Indian society. Regardless of conviction, individuals regard union as a fundamental advancement in their lives, and they agree that moral values and customs must be preserved for a stable community,” it added.

India is a country with a diverse set of principles, traditions, rituals and beliefs that serve as essential legal sources, the judge observed.

“Marriage is a holy relationship with legal consequences and great social esteem. Our country, with its deep cultural origins, places a significant emphasis on morals and ethical reasoning.”

“However, as time has passed, we have begun to adopt western culture, which is vastly different from Indian culture. A portion of India appears to have adopted a modern lifestyle, namely, live-in relationships,” the court said.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi/Allahabad:

Referring to live-in relationships, Allahabad High Court earlier this week observed that a “systematic design is working to destroy the institution of marriage in India.”

The high court made the observation while granting bail to a man accused of raping his live-in partner.

The single bench of Justice Siddarth said that “the security, social acceptance and stability”which the institution of marriage provides to a person is never provided by live-in-relationship. “The brutish concept of changing partners in every season cannot be considered to be a hallmark of a stable and healthy society,” he said.

The high court observed that middle-class morality cannot be ignored in India. “Live-in-relationship shall only be considered as normal after the institution of marriage becomes obsolete in this country, like in many of the so-called developed countries where it has become a big problem for them to protect the institution of marriage,” the high court said.

In its order, the high court also noted that with a similar trend in the country, “we are proceeding to create a great problem for us in future.”

“Infidelity to a partner in a married relationship and having a free live-in-relationship are being shown as signs of a progressive society. The youth gets attracted to such philosophy being advanced, unaware of the long-term consequences”, the high court said.

Adnan was accused by his live-in partner of resiling from his promise to marry her. He was arrested in April this year on the basis of a complaint filed by the 19-year-old woman in Uttar Pradesh’s Saharanpur.

They lived together for a year. When the woman got pregnant, Adnan refused to marry her, following which, the woman filed a complaint against him, alleging that he had sex with her on the false promise of marriage.