Law and You > Constitutional Law > Abolition of Untouchability (Article 17)
Untouchability is a curse to the social fabric of secular India. Untouchability in simple terms can be understood as a practice whereby a particular class or caste of persons are discriminated with on the ground of their being born in that particular caste or on the ground of their being members of those social groups involved in menial jobs. The discrimination can be in the form of physical or social boycott from the society. For instance: the members of so-called higher castes such as Brahmin, Kshatriyas, etc. would not dine or sit with a person of lower class. It was believed that people of higher castes could become impure even if a shadow of an untouchable person touches him and to re-gain his purity he had to take a dip into holy waters of the Ganga. In this article, we shall discuss provision under Article 17 of the Constitution of India for abolition of untouchability.
Forms of Untouchability Practices:
According to National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCDHR), there are various forms of discriminations being practiced against Dalits in India, these are:
- Prohibited from eating with other caste members,
- Prohibited from marrying with other caste members,
- Separate glasses for Dalits in village tea stalls,
- Discriminatory seating arrangements and separate utensils in restaurants,
- Segregation in seating and food arrangements in village functions and festivals,
- Prohibited from entering into village temples,
- Prohibited from wearing sandals or holding umbrellas in front of dominant caste members,
- Prohibited from using common village pat,
- Separate burial grounds,
- No access to village’s common/public properties and resources (wells, ponds, temples, etc.),
- Segregation (separate seating area) of Dalit children in schools,
- Bonded Labor,
- Face social boycotts by dominant castes for refusing to perform their “duties”
After Independence when great leaders of freedom struggle agreed to make our own Constitution, it was decided that there must be provisions under the Constitution regarding the abolition of social evils and upliftment of down-trodden castes and social groups etc.
Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability
Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law
Explanation:
Article 17 of the Constitution of India, in Part III, made an epoch-making declaration that ‘Untouchability’ is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of “Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with the law.
Article 17 of the Constitution is on the lines of the provisions of Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a very important and significant provision from the point of view of equality before the law. It guarantees social justice, (which has now been held by Supreme Court as fundamental Right), and dignity of man, the twin privileges which were denied to a vast section of the Indian society for centuries together
Abolition of untouchability has been included among fundamental rights under article 17. This is one of the few fundamental rights available against individuals. To make untouchability law further strong, parliament passed Untouchability (offences) Act in 1955 which came into force 1st June, 1955. Several lacunae and loopholes were found in the working of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 which compelled the Government to bring about a drastic amendment in the Act in 1976. The Act was revamped as the Protection of Civil Rights Act.
This Act lays down that whatever is open to the general public should be open to the members of the scheduled castes. No shopkeeper can refuse to sell them; no person may refuse to render any service to any person on the ground of untouchability. The Act made provision for imprisonment and fine.
In our society, there still exist feeling of superiority of caste and birth. We can experience the practice of untouchability in everyday life around us, especially in rural and semi-urban areas of the country. There are incidences showing that the evil practice is so deep rooted in Hindu society that even after 72 years of Independence is continuing in one form or other. However, it can be said that things are slowly changing; the mind set of modern generation is also changing. Today’s youth with modern education and globalized outlook are viewing the social order from different perspective of equality and impartiality and not from the religious or traditional point of view. Let us hope that this evil practice of untouchability would be removed as early as possible.
The word untouchability has not been defined either under Article 17 or the Protection of Civil Liberties Act, 1955. The term has not been used in the Article in a literal or grammatical sense.
In Deverajia v Padmanna AIR 1961 Mad 35 case, the Court observed that the term “untouchability” actually refers to the social disabilities historically imposed on certain classes of people by reason of their birth in certain castes and would not include instigation of a social boycott by reason of the conduct of certain persons. The word “Harijan” prima facie refers to an untouchable. Untouchability is an integral part of the caste system and is not based on mens rea.
In State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale Cr. L.R (1993) 72, case, the Court held that the purpose of Article 17 of the Constitution is to establish new ideal for a society based on the principle of egalitarianism.
In Jai Singh v. Union of India AIR 1993 Raj 177, case, the Court held that Article 17 of the Constitution is similar to the 13 Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America which abolished slavery.
In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473, case, the Court held that the Fundamental Right under Article 17 of the Constitution is available against private individuals also and it is the Constitutional duty of the state to take necessary steps and ensure that this Fundamental Right is not violated.
In State v. Gulab Singh AIR 1954 All 483, case the Court punished the Hindus as they compelled the bridegroom of the Scheduled Caste to alight from the dola-palki while passing through the village.
In P. S. Charya and Others v. State of Madras, AIR 1956 Mad 541 case, the Court held that Article 17 is prospective legislation and the laws in force in the state before the commencement of the Constitution are specifically saved up to the extent they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and are to continue until altered, repealed, modified or amended by Parliament.