Jodhpur- The Rajasthan High Court declared social boycott unconstitutional. More than six months later, the Rajasthan Social Boycott Prevention Campaign says the government has made public no order, circular, advisory or notification implementing the Court’s directions. Shobha Prabhakar, a member of the commission constituted by the High Court and the person leading the campaign, has now written formally to Jogaram Patel, the State’s Cabinet Minister for Parliamentary Affairs and Law & Legal Affairs.
The letter is dated 30 October. Copies went to Chief Secretary V. Srinivas, Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Bhaskar A. Sawant and Director General of Police Rajeev Kumar Sharma, who had earlier been informed through Letter No. RSBPC/01/2026 dated 29 October 2026. A copy of the 10 April 2026 judgment is enclosed.
The letter is courteous in tone but firm in its conclusion. If no reply arrives within 15 days of receipt, the campaign says it will regretfully treat the silence as non-compliance with the High Court’s directions, amounting to contempt of its order, and will be at liberty to approach the Court and pursue other legal remedies.
The matter traces back to an order dated 7 March 2025 in Bhaka Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1306/2025). In that order the High Court constituted a commission to examine, on the ground, the social boycott and ostracism imposed by khap panchayats and self-styled community bodies. The commission visited Pali, Banswara, Jalore, Nagaur, Jodhpur (Rural and Urban) and Jaisalmer, where it met victims, Station House Officers and local authorities. Prabhakar was one of its members.
On the basis of the commission’s findings, Justice Farjand Ali of the Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur) delivered a reportable common order on 10 April 2026 in Deepa Ram Meghwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1344/2025) and connected matters. The petitions arose from social boycott, coercive monetary exactions (dand) and ostracism imposed by self-styled Panchs.
As quoted in the letter, the Court held that the practice of social boycott, “in whatever form, is in direct affront to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India”, particularly equality, non-discrimination and life with dignity. It described the very edifice of khap panchayats as standing in direct conflict with the constitutional ethos, and held that in the absence of a specific law, the actions of such bodies cannot be permitted to transgress fundamental rights. Adopting the Supreme Court’s observation in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), the Court reiterated that what is illegal cannot command recognition or acceptance.
The letter lists the directions of “present relevance”. The Court did not stop at a declaration; it issued specific, time-bound and institution-building directions.
Compliance with Shakti Vahini (Paras 21.1–21.2): District Magistrates/Collectors, Superintendents of Police, Station House Officers and officials of Panchayats and Municipalities must strictly implement the preventive, remedial and punitive measures laid down by the Supreme Court. Any deviation, the Court warned, may invite contempt proceedings.
District Nodal Officers (Paras 22–22.4): A Nodal Officer must be designated in every district, working with the Collector, the Superintendent of Police and representatives of Panchayati Raj and municipal bodies. The mechanism must be easily accessible to victims, conduct a preliminary inquiry into every complaint, and maintain a systematic, contemporaneous and documented record of complaints and the action taken.
State-level mechanism (Para 22.5): A centralised office must be established to maintain consolidated data on such cases.
Pending FIRs (Para 23): The Director General of Police was directed to depute an officer not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police to take over all concerned FIRs and conclude an independent, fair and comprehensive investigation within 90 days. A separate report on the broader patterns was to be placed through the Home Secretary before the Chief Secretary for policy-level action.
Policy and SOP (Paras 24–24.6): The Home Department was to formulate a comprehensive policy on preventing and redressing unlawful assemblies and coercive social practices, and a step-by-step Standard Operating Procedure for field functionaries, to be circulated widely and publicised.
Legislation (Paras 20.2 and 27): The Court noted an “urgent and compelling necessity” for the legislature to enact a comprehensive and robust law, and expected the State to take expeditious steps towards a legislative framework.
The letter’s section on the present position is blunt. More than six months have passed since the judgment, and the 90-day period for concluding the FIR investigations ended long ago, in early July 2026. Yet, according to the campaign, nothing indicates that District Nodal Officers have been designated, a State-level monitoring office constituted, or the policy and SOP formulated and made public.
The campaign has left room for correction. It says it would be most happy to be corrected if these steps have already been taken but remain unpublicised, and that this is why it is writing. The question, in other words, is as much about transparency as about compliance: if steps were taken, why are they not visible?
The campaign has asked for the following information, along with copies of the relevant orders, circulars and notifications:
The orders designating District-level Nodal Officers and the institutional mechanisms or Special Cells, with addresses and contact details
The order establishing the State-level centralised office and the data compiled by it so far
The DGP’s order deputing the investigating officer, the present status of the FIRs, and whether the investigations were concluded within 90 days.
Whether the separate report on broader patterns has been prepared and placed before the Chief Secretary, and the action taken on it.
The present status of the policy and SOP, and whether they have been circulated and publicised as directed.
The measures taken to implement the Shakti Vahini directions, including identification of sensitive districts and villages, advisories to Superintendents of Police, district Special Cells and helplines, and safe houses.
The steps taken or proposed towards a dedicated legislative framework, in light of Paras 20.2 and 27.
In her conversation with The Mooknayak, Shobha Prabhakar says, that despite the authoritative declaration, incidents of social boycott, ostracism, coercive fines and the so-called “hukka-pani band” continue to occur rampantly across Rajasthan. Reports reach the campaign from several districts of families being denied water, trade, social intercourse and participation in community life, and of women and couples being punished for exercising personal choice.
She adds that these cases are only the visible fraction. Prabhakar points to Para 10.3 of the judgment, where the Court recorded that victims, out of fear of further ostracism, economic deprivation and social retaliation, are often dissuaded from approaching the authorities, rendering the issue “legally invisible”. The Court Commissioners’ field report, as recorded in the judgment, also disclosed a deeply disturbing and pervasive pattern of social ostracism operating as an extra-constitutional mechanism of coercion across several districts.
One line in the letter sums up the campaign’s argument: a pronouncement of illegality, however eloquent, remains a dead letter if it is not translated into administrative action on the ground.
The letter does not end with criticism. Prabhakar acknowledges that the remedial and legislative response lies within the wisdom of the executive and the legislature, and that, as recorded in Para 9.3 of the judgment, the Court Commissioners’ mandate was confined to identifying the malady. Because of her close acquaintance with the problem, she offers, in a spirit of constructive cooperation and without exceeding that mandate, to assist the government by:
sharing field findings and documented case material,
helping sensitise field-level functionaries,
consulting on the drafting of the policy and SOP, and
facilitating safe and dignified access of victims to the authorities.
She has also asked for a meeting at the Minister’s convenience.
The 15-day deadline runs from the date the letter is received, which puts it in the first half of November. Whether the government responds with orders and notifications or faces questions in court remains to be seen. The High Court’s judgment already carries a warning on contempt for deviation from its directions.
For the families still living under boycott, the question is simple: the Court has affirmed their rights, but where is the machinery meant to protect them?
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.
'The Mooknayak' practices democratic journalism. It is a media platform committed to the Constitution, democracy, and social justice. If you also want 'The Mooknayak' to always raise the voices of the marginalized and show the pain of the voiceless, please subscribe.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE US