Abstract
Article 17 is a critical component of the Right to Equality. In addition to equality, it provides social justice. In some aspects, this article is similar to the 13th Amendment to the American Constitution, which prohibited slavery in all of its forms. To abolish the caste system, untouchability, prejudice, and other forms of oppression that have existed in our culture for millennia. That is why the Indian constitution includes Article 17. We are all aware that the chairman of the drafting committee was a Dalit named Babasaheb Ambedkar. In order for him to completely appreciate the agony of the lower caste. This Article protects citizens not just from the state, but also from private persons.
Article 17 is an absolute item in the Constitution; however, it is not the only one. That is, any sort of untouchability is prohibited. That is, there is only punishment if you exercise untouchability.
Keywords
Article 17, untouchability, equality, justice, constitution
Introduction
Untouchability is a curse that has lasted for millennia in civilization. Untouchables have been subjected to harsh treatment since ancient times just because they did not belong to the “elite class” of humans. The readers’ curiosity had always been piqued by the question, “Who were the Untouchables?” “Why were they treated like that?” “What had been done for them so far? The rulers, or more accurately the wealthy, were the most powerful, followed by a circle of their associates who served and counselled them. The Officers were the ordinary man who owned small businesses at the top of the class hierarchy, just behind the ruling parties and nobility. As one descends, one comes to a class that was neither a king nor belonging to the monarch, his troops, or his subjects.
Those were the untouchables who mainly resided outside the city walls and participated in inhumane treatment, such as washing and cleaning other people’s bathrooms. People from the lower classes have been objectified as “things that cannot be touched,” therefore the “Untouchables.”
What is untouchability[1]
There is no definition of untouchability in the Indian Constitution or any legislation approved by Parliament. However, the Mysore High Court confirmed its meaning in one of its rulings. According to the court, the topic of Article 17 is untouchable in the sense of “practise as it had developed historically in the country,” not in a literal or grammatical meaning. It alludes to the societal constraints imposed on certain classes of individuals due to their birth into specific castes. As a result, it precludes things like social isolation or exclusion from religious services for a few people.
Article 17 explanation[2]
- According to Article 17, “untouchability” is abolished and its practise in whatever form is prohibited. The imposition of any impairment resulting from “Untouchability” is a criminal act punishable by law.
- The idea of “untouchability” has been repealed, and its use in any form is forbidden. Any limitation imposed as a result of “Untouchability” is a criminal violation punished by law.
- Article 17 of the Indian Constitution was included to put an end to the caste system, untouchability, discrimination, and other types of injustice that have persisted in our society for decades.
- It protects against not just the government but also against private persons.
- The state is legally obligated to make the necessary steps to guarantee that it is not breached. Case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India
- Article 17 is the only one of the Constitution’s fundamental rights that is absolute. That is, practising untouchability in any form is forbidden, and there are ‘no ifs, no buts,’ just sanctions if you do.
- The presence of this provision in the Constitution indicates the Constituent Assembly’s priority for the elimination of this abhorrent practise.
Examples of practices considered as untouchability
- Preaching untouchability directly or indirectly
- preventing anybody from visiting or worshipping in a public house of worship (such as a temple, mosque, or church)
- Justifying untouchability by traditional, religious, philosophical, or other considerations (I believe in casteism because it is written in the Bible.) That will not work, and it will also be deemed a felony.)
- Refusal to enter any business, hotel, club, or other public pleasure facility;
- Restriction on the site of public services, such as a reservoir, a tap, or other water sources, a road, a public pasture, a cremation, or other areas.
- Insulting someone from a scheduled caste (SC, ST, OBC) for being untouchable;
- Refusing to allow individuals into public-service hospitals, educational institutions, or hostels
Important cases related to article 17[3]
- People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India AIR 1982[4]
The Supreme Court declared that if a private individual abuses the rights protected by Article 17 of the Constitution, the state must interfere immediately. This is done to ensure that the less fortunate SC and ST untouchables do not have to go to court to enforce their basic rights.
- State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale, AIR 1993[5]
The lower courts found the defendant guilty in this case, however the high court exonerated him of the charge of prohibiting people of lower castes from utilising the freshly drilled bore well. The Supreme Court ruled that he was not guilty. Four Harijans testified against the respondent. As a result, the Supreme Court opted to accept the lower courts’ decisions.
- Safai Karamchari Andolan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.[6]
The Petitioners filed a petition under Article 32, requesting that the Central Government, State Governments, and Union Territories execute the Manual Scavengers’ and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993.
- Suhasini Baban Kate (Sou.) v. State of Maharashtra [7]
insulting someone because they are untouchable the complaint was a 30-year-old woman. Her credit history is impeccable. The wife was the youngest of her three boys, all of whom were under a year old. The alleged event is believed to have happened on the spur of the moment, and the accused words were most likely made as a result of the sudden outburst of rage. The complainant made further assertions in addition to the overt charges. However, she was detained for three days. Given the gravity of the offence, it was thought inappropriate to sentence her to prison; instead, despite the fact that the obligatory sentence was just one month, she may very well be released under the conditions of the probation she had previously completed.
- The sabarimala case[8]
The controversy surrounding a recent Supreme Court judgement exemplifies the importance of determining religious freedom in India on both a social and legal level. To illustrate the enormous societal repercussions of the Supreme Court’s approach, we must foresee this occurrence and hint at the conclusions of the following pages. The Sabarimala issue concerns a Hindu temple in Kerala’s south region. Pilgrims to Sabarimala customarily do vratham, a forty-one-day period of discipline, fasting, celibacy, and cleanliness, prior to their temple dedication.
Furthermore, many pilgrims suffer an arduous, often 60-kilometer foot walk across forest to reach the Sabarimala shrine. Although some have made claims about women’s health and well-being, religion is the primary rationale for the limitation. Lord Ayyappa, the temple’s Deity, is regarded to be a devout celibate or Brahmachari. The presence of women at the temple is believed to be insulting to the god. Others raise the issue of menstrual impurity or feminine distraction and interference with male devotees’ vratham rites. Two females defied a long-standing restriction and visited the Sabarimala shrine in early 2019.
The trigger for their actions was a 2018 court judgement that declared the admission prohibition on women unlawful and ordered the municipal police to safeguard all women who went on pilgrimages. The Sabarimala judgement was met with intense protest in Kerala. During rallies and protests, violence has erupted. countless deaths have been attributed to the disturbances, and countless buses, police cars, companies, and offices have been damaged or destroyed. To guarantee public safety, the administration shuttered all schools and public transit throughout the state.
The larger outrage produced by the decision swiftly spread beyond the state, reaching a level that could only be defined as national fury. The country’s most famous politicians and analysts weighed in on the issue, there were protests in both Delhi and Mumbai, and news sources spent endless hours covering it. I don’t want to oversimplify the intricacies that led to the upheaval that followed the Sabarimala ruling. However, there is a widespread belief among them that the ostensibly secular government has failed to protect the religious sensitivities of India’s millions of Hindus. As a result, a holy shrine has become a battleground. The infamous case is titled Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala.
Conclusion
The two fundamental concerns that drove the formation of Indian legal theory were what defines a religious connection and what religious practises are necessary. When a party claims to have abused its right to manage its religious affairs, the religious identity test is invoked. There was a moment in Indian history when religion backed, governed, and dominated the nation’s legal and judicial systems. Things are now just the reverse. In today’s secular India, land law governs the amount of religion in society, and the judiciary judges what religious laws express, suggest, and require.
The Supreme Court’s decision confirms Indian secularism’s features in both theory and actuality. This allows us to more correctly locate India within the greater debate over worldwide secularism and religious freedom. The approaches utilised by the Indian Supreme Court to convey its views on religious freedom were examined in this study. The judgements of higher courts in religious conflicts of various natures and types often reflect an objective and unbiased perspective. There were a few oddities that occasionally indicated to the presence of committed judges or those who were influenced by certain political and religious viewpoints.
This article is written by Piuli Banerjee, New law college Bharati Vidyapeeth, Pune, 2nd year student(5year B.A.LL.B) during her internship at LeDroit India.
[1] https://prepp.in/news/e-492-abolition-of-untouchability-article-17-indian-polity-notes
[2] https://prepp.in/news/e-492-abolition-of-untouchability-article-17-indian-polity-notes
[3] https://aishwaryasandeep.com/2022/08/09/article-17-abolition-of-untouchability/
[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/496663/
[5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/514077/
[6] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6155772/
[7] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/747735/
[8] https://www.scobserver.in/cases/indian-young-lawyers-association-v-state-of-kerala-sabarimala-temple-entry-background/
