Intimate partner violence (IPV) constitutes a grave violation of bodily autonomy, dignity, and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While the Indian legal framework relies predominantly on retributive criminal justice mechanisms to address domestic violence, persistent underreporting, survivor retraumatization, and systemic delays continue to undermine effective access to justice—particularly for women in tribal and marginalized communities.

This article critically examines the potential of restorative justice (RJ) as a constitutionally permissible adjunct to formal criminal adjudication in cases of IPV, with specific reference to the customary justice practices of the Khasi and Santhal tribal communities. Through a doctrinal legal methodology, supplemented by feminist jurisprudence and comparative constitutional analysis, the article evaluates whether restorative justice mechanisms embedded within tribal forums can be reconciled with constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and survivor autonomy.

The study finds that while Khasi and Santhal customary institutions incorporate restorative elements such as dialogue, community accountability, and reintegration, their unregulated and patriarchal operational structures risk coercion and the erosion of women’s rights. Drawing on comparative models from Canada and New Zealand, as well as international human rights standards under CEDAW, the article argues that restorative justice must be statutorily codified, procedurally safeguarded, and subject to judicial oversight to be viable in IPV cases.

The article concludes that restorative justice, when framed within constitutional morality and feminist legal principles, can function as a survivor-centric, culturally responsive adjunct justice mechanism—provided it prioritizes voluntariness, accountability, and enforceability. In doing so, it offers a normative framework for integrating restorative justice within India’s plural legal system without diluting protections against gender-based violence.

Research Questions

1. Can restorative justice be constitutionally integrated as an adjunct mechanism in cases of intimate partner violence in India?
2. Do customary justice practices among the Khasi and Santhal tribes embody restorative principles compatible with feminist and constitutional mandates?
3. What legal safeguards are necessary to prevent coercion and re-victimization of survivors within restorative frameworks?
4. How can comparative Indigenous justice models inform statutory reform in the Indian context?

Original Contribution

This article contributes to Indian feminist legal scholarship by:

• Distinguishing restorative justice from informal compromise in IPV cases
• Situating tribal customary practices within constitutional morality
• Proposing a statutory RJ framework grounded in survivor autonomy
• Bridging restorative justice theory with Indian tribal legal pluralism

Methodology

This study employs a doctrinal legal research methodology, analysing primary legal sources including constitutional provisions, statutes, judicial decisions, Law Commission Reports, and international human rights instruments. The doctrinal approach is supplemented by comparative constitutional analysis, examining restorative justice frameworks in jurisdictions such as Canada and New Zealand, particularly in Indigenous justice contexts.

Secondary sources include peer-reviewed academic literature on restorative justice theory, feminist jurisprudence, tribal customary law, and legal pluralism. The article adopts a normative feminist lens to interrogate power asymmetries inherent in restorative processes, especially in cases of gender-based violence.

The Khasi and Santhal communities are examined as analytical case studies, not through empirical fieldwork but as normative illustrations of customary justice systems incorporating restorative elements. The focus is on legal structure, authority, and compatibility with constitutional rights rather than anthropological generalization.

This layered methodology enables an integrated analysis of restorative justice as a legal concept, a constitutional question, and a culturally embedded practice, culminating in a normative proposal for statutory reform..