Reviewed and updated 20 August 2026 to reflect enactment of Karnataka Act No. 26 of 2026.
By Aneeta Prem MBE
Karnataka has enacted an important law on freedom of choice in marriage and crimes committed in the name of so-called honour or tradition.
The Karnataka Freedom of Choice in Marriage and Prevention and Prohibition of Crimes in the Name of Honour and Tradition (Eva Nammava Eva Nammava) Act, 2026 received the Governor’s assent on 9 April 2026 and was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 10 April. It is Act No. 26 of 2026.
That is more than a change of label from Bill to Act. It means the legislation has passed through the State Legislature and received assent.
There is, however, an important commencement point. Section 1 says the Act will come into force on a date appointed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette. Anyone relying on the law in a live case should therefore check the latest official commencement position and obtain appropriate legal advice.
What the Act is trying to protect
The Act starts from individual autonomy. It says adults who are otherwise eligible to marry have the right to choose their partner and that parental, family, caste or clan consent is not required once the two adults agree to marry.
It addresses conduct carried out in the name of caste, culture, custom, tradition or so-called honour. The listed behaviour is broad. It includes physical harm, harassment, abduction, social and economic boycott, threats, pressure intended to prevent a relationship, wrongful interference with property rights, confinement, confiscating communications devices, sexual violence and forced marriage.
That breadth matters because abuse linked to family reputation does not always begin with a physical assault.
Control may appear first as isolation, surveillance, pressure, confiscation of a phone, threats about family shame, financial punishment or attempts to separate a couple.
Protection before prosecution
One of the most important parts of the Act is that it is not framed only around punishment after somebody has been attacked.
It provides for court injunctions and protection orders where a person fears interference with their freedom to choose a partner. In urgent circumstances, the court can issue interim protection before notice is given to the person said to be creating the risk.
That preventive approach is essential.
A criminal conviction after a killing cannot restore a life. Safeguarding works best when somebody can reach protection while the danger is still developing.
Why implementation will matter
Strong statutory words do not automatically create a safe route for a frightened person.
For this law to change outcomes, people need to know that protection exists. Police and other officials need to recognise patterns of coercion. Courts need to be accessible. Safe accommodation and specialist support need to be genuinely safe. People must be able to ask for help without the request itself increasing the danger.
That is where legislation meets practice.
A young adult may not describe their experience as an honour crime. They may say their phone has been taken, they are being watched, their family is arranging another marriage, they are being threatened over an inter-caste relationship, or relatives are planning to remove them from their home.
The professional task is to see the pattern rather than wait for the person at risk to use the legal label.
What the UK experience can contribute
The United Kingdom provides a useful comparison, not because its system is perfect, but because it shows why legal reform and safeguarding practice have to work together.
Forced marriage is a criminal offence in England and Wales. Forced Marriage Protection Orders can also be used to protect somebody at risk. The statutory guidance stresses multi-agency working because schools, health professionals, police, social care and specialist organisations may each hold only part of the picture.
The lesson is simple: law is necessary, but the person at risk still needs somebody to recognise what is happening and act safely.
Education is part of prevention
Through Freedom Charity, my work has focused on helping children and professionals recognise forced marriage, FGM and related forms of coercion before harm becomes irreversible.
Freedom’s lesson resources were developed with safeguarding education in mind. The PSHE Association has confirmed its work with Freedom Charity on lesson packs for But It’s Not Fair and Cut Flowers; those educational resources can be used alongside the novels.
That distinction matters. Education does not replace law, and a novel is not legislation. But young people need words for pressure, consent, coercion and fear before they can ask for help.
Why I use the term dishonour abuse
The Karnataka legislation uses the language of crimes committed in the name of “honour” and tradition. That is the statutory wording and should be quoted accurately when discussing the Act.
In my wider safeguarding work, I use the term dishonour abuse. I do so because the claimed honour belongs to the perpetrator’s justification, not to the victim’s conduct.
The legal label and the safeguarding argument can coexist. Precision requires us to say what the law calls the behaviour while remaining free to question the language society uses around it.
What success should look like
The success of Karnataka’s reform should not be measured only by how many cases eventually reach court.
Better questions are whether people know where to seek help, whether threats are recognised before violence, whether police respond without caste or gender prejudice, whether protection orders are effective, whether couples can reach safe accommodation, and whether the State publishes enough information to show how the law is working.
It should also be judged by whether people whose relationships cross caste or other family expectations can exercise ordinary adult autonomy without fear.
Final word
Karnataka’s 2026 Act is a significant legal statement: adults have a right to choose whom they marry, and violence, intimidation or punishment in the name of caste, custom, tradition or so-called honour are not private family matters.
But legislation is the beginning of protection, not the end of it.
The real test is whether somebody reaches safety before a threat becomes irreversible harm.
Sources and further reading
- India Code: Karnataka Act No. 26 of 2026
- PRS Legislative Research: text of Karnataka Act No. 26 of 2026
- GOV.UK: forced marriage and protection
- GOV.UK: forced-marriage statutory guidance
