Article 17 is only one absolute article of all the legal articles enshrined in the Constitution. That is, it is illegal to practice untouchability in any form. Do you think that if you practice untouchability, there is only punishment “without ifs or buts”. The inclusion of this provision in the Constitution demonstrates the importance that the Constituent Assembly attaches to the elimination of this evil practice. Article 17 is also an important provision from the point of view of equality before the law (Article 14). It guarantees social justice and human dignity, two privileges that have been denied to much of Indian society for centuries. The struggle against untouchability is very old and the framers of the Indian Constitution included Article 17 to eliminate this misconduct in India. Mahatma Gandhi called the untouchables “Harijans,” meaning children of God. He worked for their release. Article 17 abolishes untouchability and its practice in any form. The exercise will be considered a criminal offence and will be punishable. The word untouchability is not defined anywhere in the constitution. In Jai Singh v.
Union of India and Devrajiah v. B. Padmana, the Rajasthan High Court in the former and the Madras High Court in the latter have defined the word untouchability. In Article 17, the word untouchability is written in quotation marks, which means that the meaning of the word untouchability should not be considered in its literal grammatical sense, but should be understood taking into account Indian society. In Indian society, especially Hindu society, untouchability has been practiced for a long time. People were considered untouchable, either because of their birth into a certain caste or community, or because of their profession. In the past, the Shudras were considered untouchable. Article 17 is an important element of the right to equality. It aims to establish social justice in society. In order to prevent the commission of crimes or atrocities against members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, Parliament also passed the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
The law provides for the establishment of special courts to try crimes covered by the law and to facilitate and rehabilitate victims of such crimes. Atrocities committed against a Hindu scheduled caste or scheduled tribe that has converted to another religion may be prosecuted under the law if the victim still suffers from a social disability. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale, the Supreme Court expressed concern about the persistence of the practice of untouchability, noting that it was an indirect form of slavery and the only extension of the caste system. This right is directed against individuals. The nature of untouchability is such that it is not possible to imagine where the State can practice untouchability. In People`s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI, the Supreme Court held that if a fundamental right set out in sections 17, 23 or 24 is violated by an individual, it would be the constitutional duty of the state to take the necessary steps to put an end to such a violation and to ensure that the person complies with the law. It is not because the injured party has been able to protect or enforce its contested fundamental rights that the State is relieved of its constitutional obligations. Untouchability is abolished and its exercise in any form whatsoever is prohibited. The assertion of a disability resulting from untouchability is a criminal offence punishable by law.
Both laws declared these practices a criminal offence, which we read above. Note: In order to avoid untouchability in the Constitution, the provisions of Article 15(2) are also appropriate. This article provides security not only against the state, but also against individuals. It is the legal duty of the State to take the necessary measures to prevent the violation of these rights. (People`s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI) Due to the numerous judgments and instructions of the court, some works are treated as conforming to untouchability, for which a penalty is also provided. The practice of untouchability is a criminal offence and punishable. There is a sentence of six months` imprisonment or a fine not exceeding 500 rupees. The purpose of article 17 is not inviolable in its literal or grammatical sense, but “practice as it has historically developed in the country”. It refers to the social handicaps imposed on certain groups of people because of their birth into certain castes. Therefore, it does not cover the social boycott of a few people or their exclusion from religious services, etc. The Indian Constitution establishes the equality of all citizens.
Article 14 provides that there shall be no discrimination between individuals on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth. The framers of the constitution took such precautions to establish equality between individuals in society. Before independence, there were many grievances in our society such as Satipratha, untouchability, etc. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and other officials wanted our country to be completely free of untouchability, so they made a separate Article 17 to overcome this practice and achieve the goal of equality between individuals. Note: There is an act of untouchability that is not mentioned in any law, so in such cases, the court will decide what should be included in that law. This fundamental right does not apply automatically.
Even after 70 years of the constitution`s entry into force, untouchability is still said to be practiced in many places in India. To address this, Parliament has passed laws that make use of the powers conferred by section 35. Article 35, read in conjunction with article 17, gives Parliament the power to enact laws providing for sanctions for the exercise of untouchability. Parliament passed the Untouchability (Offences) Act in 1955, and in 1976 it was strengthened and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955. It defines “citizenship” as “any right conferred on a person by virtue of the abolition of untouchability by article 17 of the Constitution.” Not all violations of the Act have been consolidated. The law provides for a penalty (1 to 2 years` imprisonment) if a person is prevented from entering a public place of worship or refusing access to shops, public restaurants, hotels or places of public entertainment, or refusing entry to hospitals and refusing to sell goods or provide services to a person. Insulting a member of the scheduled caste for untouchability, or preaching untouchability, or justifying it on historical, philosophical, religious or other grounds, is also a crime. There is no definition of untouchability in the Indian Constitution and in any law passed by Parliament.
Untouchability is not defined in either the Constitution or the law. It refers to a social practice that despises certain disadvantaged classes solely because of their birth and discriminates against them for that reason. Their physical contact was considered pollution of others. These castes, called untouchables, were not allowed to draw water from the same wells or use the pond/reservoir used by the upper castes. They were not allowed to enter some temples and suffered many other disabilities. In order to protect the fundamental rights of citizens and eradicate the practice of untouchability, the Government has enacted laws in the exercise of its power under article 35. Absolute nature: You must have read that there are exceptions in all other rights, while there are no exceptions in this article. This means that you can not hurt him under any circumstances. End the caste system, the practice of untouchability, discrimination and other types of practices that have prevailed in our society for centuries.
That is why Article 17 has been inserted into the Indian Constitution. It has been held before this Court that if section 17 rights are violated by an individual, it is incumbent upon the state to take immediate action in that regard. Care must be taken to ensure that the poor SC and ST are not only brought to justice for upholding human rights. In the present case, the defendants were prosecuted for forcibly preventing the applicant from extracting water from the newly dug well because it belonged to the municipality considered inviolable. There was a statement against the respondent of 4 Harijans. In this case, it has been said that the purpose of Article 17 is to establish the ethical and moral roots that have been lost by society due to blind and ritual conformity with cultural values. It has been said that it aims to create equality of Dalits with the general population. There should be a ban on caste and religious grounds. There should be an abundance of resources.
The government enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act of 1955, which was subsequently amended, and a new law was introduced, the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955. This law contained numerous provisions to combat untouchability. The Act provided that offences against untouchability are offences that cannot be summarized. The law required a public servant to investigate any complaint.