Article 17-18
AArambh Judiciay
“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.
अस्पृश्यता का अंत, Constitution of India, Article 17
''अस्पृश्यता'' का अंत ककया जाता है और उसका ककसी भी रूप में आचरण
किकिद्ध ककया जाता है । ''अस्पृश्यता'' से उपजी ककसी कियोियता को लागू करिा
अपराध होगा जो किकध के अिुसार दं डिीय होगा।
What is Untouchability?
The main keyword of the entire article 17 is the word untouchability.
But a fascinating fact is, it is not defined in the constitution either in
any law passed by the Parliament.
So it means the constitution has given us the word untouchability but
did not define it. And whenever there is a need to identify or interpret
anything about the constitution, the judiciary of India is liable to do it.
In Jai Singh vs. Union of India case Rajasthan High Court
and Devrajiah vs B. Padmana case of Madras High Court defined
the word untouchability.
The court said that in article 17, the word ‘Untouchability’ is placed
under inverted commas, which means the word is not to be taken by
its literal or grammatical interpretation. The meaning of the word is to
be derived from historical development and historical practices.
Untouchability refers to the social disability imposed on certain
classes of a person because of their birth in a specific backward class.
Hence, it does not cover any social boycott of a few individuals or
their exclusion from religious services, etc.
Therefore the word untouchability in article 17 only means ‘Caste-
based untouchability’.
How article 17 works?
To deals with the problem of untouchability, article 17 says explicitly
that it is forbidden and even after prohibiting if anybody practices it
then that person is punishable as per the law. As of now, we know
how this practice has been forbidden, now let’s get to
the Punishment part.
To know how a person is punished when he practices untouchability,
we first have to understand article 35 of the Indian constitution.
Whenever there is a provision of the offence or prescribing of a
punishment defined in fundamental rights of the constitution, i.e. from
article 12 to 35, that power has been given under section 35 of the
constitution.
Since we know article 17 also prescribe punishment for
untouchability, it means that punishment can be given through section
35.
So,
Article 17 – Anyone who practices untouchability shall be
punished.
Article 35 – In entire fundament rights if any punishment is
prescribed, then it can be given through section 35.
The Untouchability Offences Act of 1955
To fulfil the mandate provided by article 17 and 35, the Parliament
passed The Untouchability Offences Act 1955, which includes
punishment for untouchability.
But later the government realised that all the provisions and
punishment defined under this Act were inadequate.
Therefore in the year 1965, a committee was set up to revise this Act.
This committee was known as ‘Committee on Untouchability –
Economic and Educational Development of Scheduled Caste’. This
committee came up with multiple recommendations.
In the year 1976, all the recommendations were included, and the
previous Act of 1955 was incorporated as ‘The Civil Rights
Protection Act 1955’.
Civil Rights Protection Act of 1955
The new and improved ‘Untouchability Offences Act of 1955’ is now
popularly known as The Civil Rights Protection Act of 1955.
Under the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, the offences
committed on the ground of untouchability are punishable either by
imprisonment up to six months or by fine up to 500 or both. A person
convicted of the offence of untouchability is disqualified for
election to the Parliament or state legislature.
This Act declares the following acts as offences.
• To prevent any person from entering any place of public worship
or from worshipping therein.
• To justify untouchability on traditional, religious, philosophical
or other grounds.
• To deny access to any shop, hotel or places of public
entertainment.
• To restrict a person belonging to scheduled caste on the ground
of untouchability.
• To refuse to admit a person in the hospital, educational institution
or hostels established for public benefit.
• To preach untouchability directly or indirectly.
• Refusing to sell goods or render services to any person.
Changes made in the Civil Rights Protection Act 1935
The significant improvement of the punishment and along with it, all
the offences relating to the untouchability were made
1- non-compoundable.
2- Enhancement of punishment
3- Duty of public servant
4- Place of worship
5- Power of state govt to impose fines
Important cases related to Article 17
In People Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India case, the
court said that the protection provided under article 15 and article 17
is available against state and private individual. It means all the
citizens are protected against the practice of untouchability from both
state and private individuals. So the implications of both the articles
are broader than the other articles.
In State of Karnataka vs Appa Balu Ingale case, the supreme court
said that the objective of the article 17 is to remove all forms of
disability, restrictions and disability on the sole basis of caste and
religion.
Apart from the Civil Rights Protection act, there is one more law that
describes the punishment for the untouchability, i.e. ‘ST-SC
Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. This Act also provides other
crucial information such as how the trial has to be conducted, what is
the relief’s available, the formation of special courts, etc.
Safai Karamchari Andolan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
A writ under Article 32 was filed by the Petitioners praying for the
enforcement of Manual Scavengers’ and Construction of Dry
Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 by the Central Government, State
Governments and Union Territories. In this case, the Court issued
various directions:
1. Rehabilitation of all the manual scavengers
2. Giving Scholarships to the children of Manual Scavengers.
3. Giving one-time cash assistance to manual scavengers.
4. One member of their family should be given skill training in
livelihood.
5. Other legal assistance as needed for them.
6. Compensation of 10 Lakh rupees for every sewer death.
Abolition of titles (Article 18)
1-No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be
conferred by the State.
2-No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign State.
3-No person who is not a citizen of India shall, while he holds any
office of profit or trust under the State, accept without the consent of
the President any title from any foreign State.
4-No person holding any office of profit or trust under the State shall,
without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument,
or office of any kind from or under any foreign State.
Are Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padmashree, etc. violative of
Art. 18?
In 1954, the Government of India introduced decorations (in the form
of medals) of ‘our categories, namely, Bharat Ratna, Padma
Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri. While the Bharat Ratna
is to be awarded for “exceptional services towards the advancement
of Art, Literature and Science, and in recognition of public service of
the – higher order”, the others would be awarded for “distinguished
public service in any field, including service rendered by Government
servants”, in order of the degree of the merit of their service.
It is necessary that there should be a system of awards and
decorations to recognize the excellence in performance of duties by a
person. These awards merely denote the State’s recognition of good
work by citizens in various fields of activities. These fit in the
category of academic distinctions. They are mere decorations and not
the hereditary titles of nobility like Maharaja, Rai Bahadur, Rao sahib,
etc. So, these awards are not violative of the provisions of Art. 18.
But, they cannot be used as a title and cannot be used as suffix or
prefix. Otherwise the awards are liable to be forfeited.
It can be noted here that the Bharat Ratna awardees have been
assigned a place in the Warrant of Precedence’ (9th place, i.e., just
below the Cabinet Ministers of the union), which is usually meant for
indicating the rank of the different dignitaries and high officials of the
State, in the interests of discipline in the administration.
LANDMARK CASES-
Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996)
Facts – it was noticed that the awards were misused by the awardees
by using the awards as titles qualifying their names. In light of the
events of misuse of National awards, the Constitutionality of the
awards was challenged as violative of Article 18 of the Constitution.
Issue- An issue raised was whether the Awards like Bharat Ratna,
Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri are “Titles” within
the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Constitution of India or not.
The issue went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Petitioner – The terms ‘title’ and ‘distinction’ is nowhere defined in
the Article18. The National Awards make a distinction according to
rank, hence the conferment is violative of Article 14.
Respondent – Awards had degenerated to rewards to those who serve
the political ends of the Government. The word ‘title’ in Article 18(1) is used
in an expansive sense to include awards, distinctions, orders, decorations
or titles, except military and academic distinctions.
It was said that National Awards do not confer titles of nobility, cannot be
prefixed or suffixed, hence not prohibited. Also, many other countries follow
the practice of conferring awards for laudable services rendered by its
citizens.
