Untouchability has been abolished by the Indian Constitution through Article 17. The Article states that the practice of untouchability is prohibited in all forms. Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes the practice of untouchability. The practice of untouchability is an offense under the Untouchability Offences Act of 1955 (renamed to Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976) and anyone doing so is punishable by law. This Act states that whatever is open to the general public should be open to all the citizens of India.
This article enacts two declarations:
1. Firstly, it announces that ‘untouchability’ is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden,
2. Secondly, it declares that the enforcement of any disability arising out of ‘untouchability’ shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
Most part of this article is been covered under Art.15. Thus, on the grounds of untouchability no person can be denied access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment or the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort, maintained wholly or partly out of State funds.
These are the major instances of the form in which untouchability is practised in this country. All these practices are now forbidden by the Constitution. For the effective enforcement of the declaration contained in this article, the Constitution contemplates penal laws specifying various acts which are to be prohibited and penalised and under Article 35 the parliament alone can make laws prescribing punishments for the acts forbidden under Article 17.
In 1955 Parliament, enacted Untouchability (Offences) Act, and it prescribed punishments for various practices which are forbidden. However, it was found that the punishments are inadequate and in 1965, a committee on Untouchability, Economic and Educational Development of the Scheduled Castes was set upped. On the recommendations made by this committee, a bill was passed in 1976 and renamed as ‘Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955’. Significant changes were made, and offences are now punishable up to three months.
In the case of Devarajjah vs. Padmana, 1958, the term untouchability was defined. It was stated that the Untouchability Offences Act, 1955 fails to define the word ‘untouchability’. The Court observed that ‘untouchability’ under Article 17 of the Constitution should not be taken in the literal sense but should be understood as a practice that has prevailed and developed in India. The framers of the Constitution had clearly indicated untouchability as a practice that developed historically in this country. Article 17 of the Constitution which was intended to abolish the practice of untouchability, fails to define the term ‘untouchability’ nor is it defined anywhere else in the Constitution. Through this case, the Court gave a broader interpretation of the word ‘untouchability’ under Article 17 of the Constitution.
State of Karnataka v. Appa Bala Ingale(1993) was the first case which came before Supreme Court under this act. In this case Harijan community was threatened to show about their social disability. Supreme Court in this case convicted the respondents.
In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v UOI, 1982, the Supreme Court held that whenever a fundamental right contained in Arts. 17, 23 or 24 was being violated by a private individual, it would be the constitutional obligation of the State to take necessary steps to interdict such violation and ensure that such person should respect the right. Merely because the aggrieved person could himself protect or enforce his invaded fundamental rights, did not absolve the State from its constitutional obligations.
To prevent the commission of offences or atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Parliament also enacted the ‘Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.’ The Act provides for special courts for the trial of offences under the Act and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. Atrocities committed against a Hindu SC or ST, who had converted to another religion, can be prosecuted under the Act, if the victim is still suffering from social disability. Though the Preamble of Constitution states that India is a Secularistic state, Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes ‘Untouchability’ and also forbids it and is punishable under law. Thus social angularity of this evil of Untouchability is tried to be abolished by the Constitution by providing express provision under it.
ARTICLE 18. ABOLITION OF TITLES: Art.18 Clause (1) prohibits the conferment of titles, Military and academic distinctions are exempted from the prohibition. Clause (2) prohibits a citizen of India from accepting any title from a foreign State. Clause (3) provides that a non-citizen who holds any office of office of profit or trust under the State shall not accept, without the consent of the President, any title from any foreign State. Clause (4) provides that no person citizen or non citizen holding any office of profit or trust, shall, without consent of the President, accept any present or emolument or office of any kind from or under any foreign State.
Titles such as Rai Bahadur, Sawai, Rai Sahab, Zamindar, taluqdar etc were prevalent in medieval and British India. All these titles were abolished by article 18 of the constitution.
In 1954 the Government of India introduced four awards namely, Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri for exceptional and distinguished service in any field including public service. Their validity was challenged in Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (AIR 1996)[ 5 judges bench held that the National awards do not amount to titles within meaning of Article 18(1)] on the ground of their inconsistency with that article. It was argued in the court that the National Awardees very often misuse the title which is given to them by the Government. The Supreme Court held that National Awards are not titles as per Article 18 and receiving a National Award was not a violation of equality under the Constitution. Article 51(A)(f) of the Constitution speaks about the necessary recognition and appreciation of excellence in the performance of a person’s duty. ((Court observed that it does not conflict with Article 18 and Court also noted indiscriminate conferment of these awards without any clear guidelines and it advised that a committee under the Prime Minister consisting among others i.e., Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or his nominee and the leader of the opposition in consultation with the President of India should nominate persons for these awards.))
Article18 does not, like Article 17 provide breach of any obligation will be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
Comments