"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.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, anything 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.
In Jai Singh v. Union of IndiaRajasthan High Court and in Devrajiah v. B. Padmana of Madras High Court, the court defined the word untouchability.The court said that ‘The subject matter of Article 17 is not untouchable 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 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, did not absolve the State from its constitutional obligations.
In State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale, the Supreme Court expressing its concern on the continuance of the practice of untouchability, held that it was an indirect form of slavery is only extension of the caste system. In this case, the accusation against the respondents was that they had forcibly restrained the complainant from taking water from a newly dug-up borewell because they were untouchable.
References
Indian Kanoon
ConstitutionofIndia.net
Blog Ipleaders
Law and Other things
