What are constitutional provisions to abolish untouchability?
Q. Which of the following is/are true?
1) Refusing to sell goods or render services to any person is not considered an offence under ambit of Article 17.
2) The term ‘untouchability’ has been defined in the Constitution in Article 17 dealing with abolition of untouchability.- Published on 21 Feb 17a. Only 1
b. Only 2
c. Both 1 and 2
d. Neither 1 nor 2
ANSWER: Neither 1 nor 2
- Article 17 abolishes ‘untouchability’ and forbids its practice in any form.
- The enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
- In 1976, the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 was amended and renamed as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 to enlarge the scope and make penal provisions more stringent.
- The act defines civil right as any right accruing to a person by reason of the abolition of untouchability by Article 17 of the Constitution.
- The term ‘untouchability’ has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the Act.
- Mysore High Court held that the subject matter of Article 17 is not untouchability in its literal 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.
- Hence, it does not cover social boycott of a few individuals or their exclusion from religious services, etc.
- 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.
The act declares the following acts as offences :
(a) preventing any person from entering any place of public worship or from worshipping therein;
(b) justifying untouchability on traditional, religious, philosophical or other grounds;
(c) denying access to any shop, hotel or places of public entertainment;
(d) insulting a person belonging to scheduled caste on the ground of untouchability;
(e) refusing to admit persons in hospitals, educational institutions or hostels established for public benefit;
(f) preaching untouchability directly or indirectly; and
(g) refusing to sell goods or render services to any person.
- The Supreme Court held that the right under Article 17 is available against private individuals.
- It is the constitutional obligation of the State to take necessary action to ensure that this right is not violated.
