INTRODUCTION:
The Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) articulates in unequivocal words the eradication of the Untouchability. ARTICLE 17 of the COI deals with the abolition of untouchability.
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.
• The right under ARTICLE 17 is available against private individuals and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to take necessary action to ensure that this right is not violated.
■ The subject matter of ARTICLE 17
is not untouchability in its literal or grammatical sense but the 'practice as it had developed historically in the country'. It refers to the social disabilities imposed on certain classes of persons by reason of their birth in certain castes.
ARTICLE 35 empowers a parliament to make laws to give effect to the provisions of Part III of constitution, so using those powers parliament enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act in 1955 which was amended in 1976 to make it more stringent.
Later it was renamed as 'The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955'.
Punishment - A person practising Untouchability can be given punishment of imprisonment up to 6 months and a fine of Rs.500 or both under this act
Untouchability:
• The term untouchability has not been defined either in the COI or in the Act.
Literally, the term includes treating persons as untouchable either temporarily or otherwise for various reasons such as suffering from contagious diseases or on account of social observances associated with birth or death or social boycott resulting from caste or other disputes.
Editorial Comment - The Indian Constitution, specifically ARTICLE 17, has abolished the practice of untouchability in all its forms. This ARTICLE explicitly declares the prohibition of untouchability. Furthermore, the Untouchability Offences Act of 1955 (renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976) considers the practice of untouchability as a criminal offense, and individuals engaging in such practices are subject to legal punishment. According to this Act, amything accessible to the general public should be equally accessible to all Indian citizens. ARTICLE 17 is a very important part of the Right to Equality. It not only provides equality but also social justice. Also the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1989 led to the establishment of special courts to decide the cases related to the commission of offenses under this act. SECTION 18 of this Act makes the commission of offenses under this Act a non-bailable offense.
√ CASE LAW: Devrajjah v. Padmanna (1958):
• "It is to be noticed that that word occurs only in ARTICLE 17 and is enclosed in inverted commas. This clearly indicates that the subject-matter of that Article is not untouchability in its literal or grammatical sense but the practice as it had developed historically in this country."
√ CASE LAW: PUDR V. Union of India (1982) (Asiad Project workers case):
• Supreme Court held that the fundamental right under ARTICLE 17 is available against private individuals too.
√ CASE LAW: Jai Singh e. Union of India:
• Rajasthan High Court and in Devranah . B. Palmana of Madras High Court, the court defined STUDY the word untouchability, The court said that The subject matter of ARTICLE 17 is not untouchable in its literal or grammatic sense but the practice as it had developed historically in the country'. It refers to the social disabilities imposed on certain classes of persons because of their birth in certain castes. Hence, it does not cover the social boycott of a few individuals or their exclusion from religious services, etc.
• In the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India. AIR 1982 the Supreme Court held that when the rights under ARTICLE 17 are violated by any private individual then it will be the responsibility of the state to take action immediately.
Merely because the aggrieved person could themself protect or enforce their invaded Fundamental Rights didn't absolve the State from its constitutional obligations.
CONCLUSION:
Untouchability emerged at a time when people were blinded by a parochial mindset stemming from religious bigotry. At the juncture of the 21st century, it is important for us to realise that the immoral practice of untouchability is a blot on the progress of a civilised society and leading a dignified life, free of prejudices that are perpetuated by baseless societal norms. Creating barriers amongst ourselves on the basis of caste not only erodes the social fabric but negatively impacts the lives of people who have faced centuries of ostracisation because of sheer fate, Discriminating people on the basis of caste results in cruel and inhumane treatment. They are subjected to marginalisation, which deprives them of receiving education and other basic amenities. A modern state that espouses the principles of equality and justice and upholds the protection of human rights would be a failure if untouchability is allowed to continue.
Even though it is not practised in the literal sense at present, such practice has insidiously crept up in our social hierarchy. Thus, it is pertinent that in order to eradicate untouchability completely, merely implementing stringent laws would not yield results. However, change in our perspective is needed, and for this cause, the State and its people must come forward unanimously.
