Published: 22 February 2026
Location: London, United Kingdom
By Aneeta Prem MBE
A young man identified in Indian media as Gurpreet Singh was shot dead at his home in Punjab, India, in a killing police linked to opposition to his love marriage, with arrests reported in Indian media. Some coverage has described the case as an “honour killing”. That wording misleads. It risks echoing the perpetrator’s rationale instead of naming the crime plainly: murder.
This is also why the UK’s current debate about “honour-based” language matters. When public bodies adopt language that reflects the abuser’s framing, clarity can slip at the exact moment it is most needed.
According to The Times of India, Sangrur police said Gurpreet Singh, also reported as “Babbu”, was shot dead at his house in Lehal Kalan village on the night of 17–18 February. The same report states that police arrested four men within hours and recovered firearms, ammunition and a vehicle allegedly linked to the attack.
Hindustan Times separately reported that police arrested a man accused of plotting his brother-in-law’s murder in connection with his sister’s marriage against the family’s wishes.
Investigations are ongoing. Courts will determine charges and guilt. However, the central point in the public reporting is clear: the alleged motive relates to opposition to a relationship and marriage chosen by the victim.
This case has been described through the language of “honour”. Yet what the reporting shows is not honour in any meaningful sense. It is control, enforced within one family.
In cases like this, “honour” often operates as internal enforcement. Families punish a person for disobedience and attempt to reassert authority over personal choice. That is why framing matters. When murder is treated as a cultural dispute or a clash between families, responsibility can blur. When it is recognised as intra-family coercion, risk factors become clearer.
What occurred here was coercive control escalating to murder.
Where perpetrators claim to act for “honour”, that claim should never soften the crime. It aggravates it.
Invoking honour can indicate intent, planning and group enforcement. Those features align with premeditation, not mitigation. The violence reported here was brutal, premeditated and criminal.
The victim’s name should not be linked to any family’s asserted honour. He exercised personal choice. The killing, as reported, was a punishment for that choice.
Calling such killings “honour-based” risks importing the perpetrator’s rationale into the description of the offence. The correct framing is murder, with claimed honour treated only as part of the alleged motive and aggravation.
This killing comes as the House of Lords debates the language used in law, policy and safeguarding to describe violence framed as “honour-based”.
Language is not a side issue. Words shape professional judgement. When public bodies repeat honour language, even unintentionally, they risk echoing the same logic used to justify coercion and punishment.
The Punjab case shows why clarity matters. A man was killed because he chose his partner. There is no honour in that. There is only violence used to enforce obedience.
If the UK wants earlier safeguarding action, the system must name the harm clearly and refuse language that dignifies it.
Killings linked to “honour” claims sit within a broader pattern that includes forced marriage, coercive control and family-based threats. These crimes often depend on silence, isolation and pressure long before physical harm occurs.
Clear language supports earlier intervention because it centres harm, sharpens accountability and helps professionals recognise coercion as a safeguarding indicator. Euphemistic language delays decisions. It also makes it harder for those at risk to describe what is happening to them.
If you want background reading on UK safeguarding practice, see:
This was not an honour killing. It was a murder framed by others as honour.
Public reporting describes a man shot dead after a love marriage opposed by family members, with police action and arrests under way.
A justice system should never allow language to dignify brutality. Where “honour” is claimed, it should be treated only as evidence of intent and aggravation, never as context that softens the crime.
“There is no honour in murder. When control is enforced through violence, the duty of the justice system is to name the harm clearly and treat claimed honour only as an aggravating factor, never as context.”
Aneeta Prem MBE
Lee Milne's sentencing in Scotland is a legal milestone. More importantly, it forces the law and the public to face a truth survivors have long understood: coercive control can be fatal, even where the perpetrator did not physically commit the final act.
The UK now describes forced marriage, FGM and so-called honour-based abuse more accurately than before. But the law still struggles to prosecute how these crimes often happen in real life: through family pressure, community enforcement, fear, shame and collective control.
The World Health Organisation has marked World Health Day 2026 under the theme “Together for health. Stand with science.” It is a timely message. But health is not only about medicine. It is also about whether people can live safely, speak freely and make choices without fear.
The March 2026 safeguarding update makes one thing harder to deny: forced marriage and FGM belong inside mainstream child protection. The question now is whether institutions can act early enough to prevent harm.
Noelia Castillo Ramos died in Barcelona on 26 March 2026 after a long legal battle over her right to euthanasia. Her death will reignite debate over assisted dying. The deeper human rights question is what failed her long before the final decision.
Female genital mutilation reconstruction UK, NHS pathway for FGM survivors, clitoral reconstruction UK, FGM survivor care UK, Women and Equalities Committee FGM reconstruction