Which Article Abolished Untouchability

This article provides security not only against the state, but also against individuals. It is the legal duty of the State to take the necessary measures to prevent the violation of these rights. (People`s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI) In the present case, the Supreme Court held that section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, which makes offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, non-bailable offences, does not make the early release provision applicable to the Scheduled Castes Act. The struggle against untouchability is very old and the framers of the Indian Constitution included Article 17 to eliminate this misconduct in India. Mahatma Gandhi called the untouchables “Harijans,” meaning children of God. He worked for their release. Article 17 is only one absolute article of all the legal articles enshrined in the Constitution. That is, it is illegal to practice untouchability in any form. Do you think that if you practice untouchability, there is only punishment “without ifs or buts”. Abolition of untouchability Article 17 was mentioned under which part of the Indian Constitution? Note: In order to avoid untouchability in the Constitution, the provisions of Article 15(2) are also appropriate. The Untouchability (Crimes) Act, which provides for penalties for the exercise of untouchability and abolishes this shameful practice, entered into force on 1 June 1955. Article 35, read in conjunction with article 17, gives Parliament the power to enact laws providing for sanctions for the exercise of untouchability.

Parliament passed the Untouchability (Offences) Act in 1955, and in 1976 it was strengthened and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955. It defines “citizenship” as “any right conferred on a person by virtue of the abolition of untouchability by article 17 of the Constitution.” Not all violations of the Act have been consolidated. The law provides for a penalty (1 to 2 years` imprisonment) if a person is prevented from entering a public place of worship or refusing access to shops, public restaurants, hotels or places of public entertainment, or refusing entry to hospitals and refusing to sell goods or provide services to a person. Insulting a member of the scheduled caste for untouchability, or preaching untouchability, or justifying it on historical, philosophical, religious or other grounds, is also a crime. Untouchability is not defined in either the Constitution or the law. It refers to a social practice that despises certain disadvantaged classes solely because of their birth and discriminates against them for that reason. Their physical contact was considered pollution of others. These castes, called untouchables, were not allowed to draw water from the same wells or use the pond/reservoir used by the upper castes. They were not allowed to enter some temples and suffered many other disabilities.

This right is directed against individuals. The nature of untouchability is such that it is not possible to imagine where the State can practice untouchability. In People`s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI, the Supreme Court held that if a person referred to in art. 17, 23 or 24 is violated by an individual, it would be the constitutional duty of the State to take the necessary measures to put an end to such a violation and to ensure that this person complies with the law. It is not because the injured party has been able to protect or enforce its contested fundamental rights that the State is relieved of its constitutional obligations. The government enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act of 1955, which was subsequently amended, and a new law was introduced, the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955. This law contained numerous provisions to combat untouchability. The Act provided that offences against untouchability are offences that cannot be summarized. The law required a public servant to investigate any complaint. If he does not do his duty properly, he will be the instigator of the law. Any preaching under this law shall be punishable.

Due to the numerous judgments and instructions of the court, some works are treated as conforming to untouchability, for which a penalty is also provided. This fundamental right does not apply automatically. Even after 70 years of the constitution`s entry into force, untouchability is still said to be practiced in many places in India. To address this, Parliament has passed laws that make use of the powers conferred by section 35. The abolition of untouchability (Article 17) has been incorporated into the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the defendants were prosecuted for forcibly preventing the applicant from extracting water from the newly dug well because it belonged to the municipality considered inviolable. There was a statement against the respondent of 4 Harijans. In this case, it has been said that the purpose of Article 17 is to establish the ethical and moral roots that have been lost by society due to blind and ritual conformity with cultural values.

It has been said that it aims to create equality of Dalits with the general population. There should be a ban on caste and religious grounds. There should be an abundance of resources. Article 17 abolishes untouchability and its practice in any form. The exercise will be considered a criminal offence and will be punishable. The word untouchability is not defined anywhere in the constitution. In Jai Singh v. Union of India and Devrajiah v. B. Padmana, the Rajasthan High Court in the former and the Madras High Court in the latter, the word defined untouchability. In Article 17, the word untouchability is written in quotation marks, which means that the meaning of the word untouchability should not be considered in its literal grammatical sense, but should be understood taking into account Indian society.

In Indian society, especially Hindu society, untouchability has been practiced for a long time. People were considered untouchable, either because of their birth into a certain caste or community, or because of their profession. In the past, the Shudras were considered untouchable. Article 17 is an important element of the right to equality. It aims to establish social justice in society. End the caste system, the practice of untouchability, discrimination and other types of practices that have prevailed in our society for centuries. That is why Article 17 has been inserted into the Indian Constitution. Article 17 of the Constitution of India provides that untouchability is abolished and its exercise in any form is prohibited.

The main objective of this article is to eliminate caste discrimination that still prevails in the country. Caste discrimination is punishable by the court. In this case, a petition under section 32 was filed by the petitioners requesting the application of the Manual Garbage Collectors and the Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act 1993 by the central government, state governments and Union territories. In that case, the court issued various orders, which read as follows: In order to prevent the commission of crimes or atrocities against members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, Parliament also enacted the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The law provides for the establishment of special courts to try crimes covered by the law and to facilitate and rehabilitate victims of such crimes. Atrocities committed against a Hindu scheduled caste or scheduled tribe that has converted to another religion may be prosecuted under the law if the victim still suffers from a social disability.