Article 17 of the Indian Constitution 

Untouchability is a social evil which causes a huge gap between different sections of the society and it also violates the principle of equality of status and opportunity enshrined in preamble of the Indian Constitution. Our Constitution makers have realised the need to eradicate the untouchability prevailing as an evil in the society and they have made provision for abolition of untouchability in the Constitution. 

Article 17 : Abolition of untouchability 

 Article 17 : “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.

'Untouchability' is neither define the Constitution nor in any Statute. 

In exercise of powers conferred by Article 35 parliament has enacted the Untouchability (offences) Act, 1955 . The Act was amended and renamed as the Untouchability (Offences) Amendment Act , 1976  in order to make the law more stringent to remove untouchability from the society. It has been now renamed as The protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 . The expression 'civil rights' is defined as 'any rights accruing to a person by reason of the abolition of untouchability by Article 17 of the Constitution. 

Under this Act, it shall be the duty of public servants to investigate such offences and if public servent wilfully neglects it, he shall be deemed to have abetted such offence. 

Punishment - Any person practising untouchability shall be punished with imprisonment upto 6 months and a fine of Rs. 500/- or both, under this Act. 

Case: People's Union for Democratic Rights 🆚 Union of India, 1982 SC 

                             Or 

        Asiad project workers case 

Held - SC held that the Fundamental Rights under Article 17 are available against private individuals and it is the constitutional duty of the state to take necessary steps to see that these Fundamental Rights are not violated. 

Case : State of Karnataka 🆚 Appa Balu Ingale, 1993 SC

 

Fact - The respondents by show of force restricted the complainant party from taking water from well . 

Held - SC convicted them. 

Case: Devrajjah 🆚  padmanna, 1958 

Held - The court held that it is to be noticed that the word occurs only in Article 17 and is enclosed in inverted commas, this clearly indicates that the subject matter of the Article is not untouchability in its literal or grammatical sense but the practice as it had developed historically in this country. 

              

                        - Anjali singh &

                        - Deepak kumar

                ( University of Allahabad)