Constitution of Bharat: Article 17: Part 3

 

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution, which abolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice, has not undergone direct amendments in terms of additional clauses as some other articles have. However, the impact and interpretation of this article have been influenced by several legislative and judicial actions over time. Here are the effects of these developments:

Legislative Enhancements:

1. Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, later renamed The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955:
   • Purpose: This act was introduced to enforce Article 17 by criminalizing the practice of untouchability. It made the enforcement of any disability arising out of "Untouchability" an offence punishable by law.
   • Effect: It provided a legal mechanism to prosecute individuals or groups practicing untouchability, thereby giving practical effect to the constitutional mandate. Over time, amendments to this act have made the punishments more stringent to deter the practice.
2. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
   • Purpose: While not a direct amendment to Article 17, this act furthers its intent by providing specific protections against atrocities committed against Scheduled Castes and Tribes, which are often linked to untouchability practices.
   • Effect: It expanded the legal framework to address more severe forms of discrimination and violence, which indirectly strengthens the constitutional prohibition against untouchability by offering more comprehensive legal recourse.

Judicial Interpretations:

• Broadening the Scope:
  • Jai Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1977) and Devrajiah v. B. Padmana (AIR 1958): These cases clarified that "untouchability" under Article 17 refers to the historical practice of social disabilities imposed due to caste, rather than its literal meaning, thus broadening the legal understanding of what constitutes untouchability.
• Public and Private Sphere:
  • People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (AIR 1982): The Supreme Court held that the State has a duty to take action when fundamental rights, including those under Article 17, are violated by private individuals, not just by the State. This interpretation extends the article's application into private interactions, significantly broadening its impact.
• Temple Entry and Social Practices:
  • Sabarimala Temple Entry Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018): The court's judgment indirectly reinforced Article 17 by striking down restrictions on women's entry into Sabarimala Temple, arguing that such practices could be seen as forms of untouchability or caste-based exclusion, although this was more about gender discrimination under Article 15.
• State's Role in Uplifting Communities:
  • State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale: The court has emphasized the state's responsibility to prevent and punish practices of untouchability, linking it back to Article 17's intent of abolishing such discriminatory practices.

Societal and Policy Impact:

• Awareness and Education: The constitutional affirmation against untouchability has led to numerous public awareness campaigns, educational reforms, and policy measures aimed at eradicating caste-based discrimination.
• Social Justice Initiatives: Programs like affirmative action in education and employment, aimed at Scheduled Castes and Tribes, can be seen as part of a broader strategy to address the historical injustices associated with untouchability.
• Cultural and Social Change: While legal changes have been significant, the cultural impact of Article 17 has been to challenge and slowly change societal norms regarding caste, though progress remains uneven across different regions of India.

In summary, although Article 17 itself has not been directly amended, its effects have been profoundly shaped by subsequent legislation, judicial interpretations, and social policy, all aimed at realizing the constitutional goal of eradicating untouchability from Indian society.