Abolition of Untouchability and Titles Under The Indian Constitution

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 7

Abolition of

untouchability
and
titles
under the
Indian constitution

1|Page
Content

Introduction………………………………………………………….3

Article 17 (Abolition of untouchability)……………………………..3

Article 18 (Abolition of title )………………………………………..5

Conclusion……………………………………………………………7

2|Page
Introduction

In the Indian constitution, fundamental rights are which are provided under part 3. From 12 to
35 articles, it talks about the six fundamentals rights provided by the constitution. One of the
rights among it is the right to equality which is mentioned under article 14 to 18. Article 14
talks about equality before the law. Article 15 talks about the prohibition of discrimination on
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 16 talks about equality of
opportunity in matters of public employment. Article 17 talks about the Abolition of
Untouchability. Article 18 talks about the Abolition of titles.

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution

“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 per the law.

Explanation

This provision puts restraints and prohibits the practice of untouchability in any form. It
ensures that untouchability is eradicated in all forms. Any kind of disability that is arising out
of untouchability is considered an offence.

The definition for the word “Untouchability” is not given neither in the Constitution nor in
the Act but it implies a social custom that discriminates certain classes or castes solely on
account of their birth.

The insertion of this provision in the Constitution demonstrates the significance put forth by
the Constitutional Assembly towards the abolition of this evil practice. This provision
guarantees social justice and dignity of man, the two main rights which were refused to a
large section of the Indian society for centuries. This right is aimed at private persons. The
nature of this provision is such that it is not possible to comprehend where the State may
practice untouchability. In the case, People’s Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India,
the Apex Court viewed that whenever a fundamental right confined in Articles 17, 23 and 24
were being violated by any person, it will become the constitutional responsibility of the
State to take required steps to prevent such violation and safeguard such individual respect
the right of every individual. Simply for the reason that the aggrieved person could himself
protect or enforce his invaded fundamental rights, does not excuse the State from its
constitutional obligations.

3|Page
Article 17 has to be read with Article 35 to confer the power of parliament to create laws
punishing for exercising untouchability. The Act was introduced in the Lok Sabha and got
passed in both houses and enacted on 1st June 1955. Then a committee on Untouchability,
Economic and Educational Development of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe was
formed. On the recommendation of the committee, a bill was passed in 1976 which made the
law more severe and was renamed as ‘Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.

The offences mentioned under the Act which are punishable under the law are preventing:

(a) a person from entering a temple/place of worship or any other public place

(b) preventing a person from drawing water from sacred water bodies, wells, etc

(c) preventing a person from using a ‘Dharamshala’, restaurant, shop, hotel, hospital, public
conveyance, educational institution, and any place of public entertainment

(d) denial of the usage of roads, rivers, riverbanks, cremation grounds, wells, etc.

Few other offences include enforcing professional, trade or occupational disabilities,


eliminating a person from benefiting out of a charity, ignoring any person from carrying out
an occupation, restricting to sell goods/services to a person, injuring, molesting,
excommunicating, boycotting, or annoying a person based on untouchability. Defines ‘Civil
Right’ as ‘any right accruing to a person because of the abolition of untouchability by Article
17 of the Constitution.’ All crimes under this act have been made non-compoundable. The
Act prescribes a sentence of one to two years of imprisonment for stopping any person from
entering any place of public worship or from worshipping or denying access to any shop,
public restaurants, hotels, or places of public entertainment or refusing to admit persons to
hospitals and refusing to sell goods or render services to any person. The punishment
imposed in this act is a 6-month-imprisonment or a fine of Rs.500 for any person convicted
of carrying out the disabilities of untouchability on anyone else in case of his first offence.
This law is made in connection with Article 15.

This also includes insulting a person of Scheduled Caste on the ground of untouchability or
preaching untouchability or rationalizing it on historical, philosophical, religious, or other
grounds is a crime. The act made the punishable if complaints related to untouchability is not
taken seriously by investigating officers as tantamount to abetment.

4|Page
To prevent the commission of crimes or offences against the people of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes, the Parliament also enacted the ‘Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.’ The Act offers special courts for the trial of
offences under the Act and the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences.
Atrocities committed against a Hindu SC or ST, who had converted to another religion, can
be prosecuted under the Act if the victim is still suffering from social debility. In State of
Karnataka v Appa Balu Ingale, the Apex Court stating its concern on the continuance of the
practice of untouchability held that it was an indirect form of slavery and it is a continuation
of the caste system.

Article 18 of the Indian Constitution:

1. Abolition of titles:

(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.

Explanation

Clause (1) abolishes all types of titles. It prohibits the State from granting degrees to anyone,
whether a citizen or a non-citizen. Military and educational segregation, however, was freed
from the ban. Therefore, a university can give a title or honour to a qualified person.

Clause (2) prohibits an Indian citizen from accepting any title in any foreign State.

Clause (3) prohibits a person from becoming a citizen of India but holding any office of
benefit or trust under the State, from accepting any title in any foreign country without the
consent of the President. Also provides that no citizen or non-citizen in charge of any office
of benefit or fund may receive any gift or glory or office of any kind in any other state except
or under any State, without the consent of the President.

5|Page
Clause (4) added to ensure that a non-citizen must remain faithful to the State which is not to
violate the trust placed in him or her.

A ‘title’ is anything that hangs to the name of a person, as an accessory (either prefix or
suffix e.g. Sir, Nawab, Maharaja, etc.). Though, the recent conferment of titles of “Bharat
Ratna”, “Padma Vibhushan”, “Padma Shri”, etc. which were introduced in the year 1954 is
said to be not forbidden under Article 18 as they simply refer to State recognition of good
work by citizens in the various fields of activity. It must be observed that Article 18 does not
guarantee any fundamental right but imposes a constraint on executive and legislative power.
Further, the conferring of titles offended against the fundamental principle of equality of all
citizens guaranteed by Article 14.

In Balaji Raghavan vs Union of India, the Apex Court defended the legitimacy of civilian
honours but condemned the government for not employing restraint in awarding those. It was
decided that the national awards cannot be considered as titles. In this case, the appellant
challenged the conferral of the awards on the ground that it was in breach of Article 18(1).
They were of the view that the word ‘title’ should be given the widest possible meaning and
fullness to give effect to the legislative purpose since the only exemption to this rule has been
cut out in respect of military and academic awards. The Union government contended that
since the national awards are not titles of nobility and are not to be used as suffixes or
prefixes, they are not outlawed by Article 18. Further, almost every single country in the
world follows the practice of granting awards for commendable essential services provided
by its citizens.

The court noted that during the British occupation, graduating power was being misused to
govern and damage public health. In recent years, the awarding of these prizes without strict
guidelines and procedures for making unwise choices will result in fertility, discrimination,
sponsorship and even corruption. Therefore, the highest level of such awards should be set,
and the total number of such awards should not exceed 50 per year. "Such a ban is necessary
to protect the value of these awards," Justice Ahmadi said. To prevent the abuse of this
power, the court recommended that the executive committee be appointed by the Prime
Minister in consultation with the President who will ensure that only the right people provide
decorations. Justice Kuldip Singh in his separate but consistent ruling suggested that the
committee include the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India, and the leader of the
Opposition in Lok Sabha.

6|Page
Following this decision, the Government appointed a ‘High-Level Review Committee: led by
the Vice-President, to intervene in the existing guidelines and prepare the process for the
selection of' Padma awards' candidates to promote respect for the awards. The Committee
recommended the establishment of Intergovernmental Committees to convey
recommendations to the Institute. Recommended names should be reviewed by the Institute,
a Committee comprising Cabinet Secretary, Home Secretary and Secretary to the President of
India. Thereafter, the confirmed names have to be presented to the Prime Minister’s office
and it is then sent to the President. There are no guidelines for ‘Bharat Ratna’ awards.

The article prevents the state from certifying any subject other than military and academic
excellence. The document also barred any Indian citizens from obtaining degrees from any
foreign country. Foreigners in charge of a state benefits office may receive titles from the
foreign government with the approval of the President. In a true democracy, there is no room
for division between the same society. Names like Rai Bahadur, Sawai, Rai Sahab, Zamindar,
taluqdar etc. are common in the Middle East and British India. All these qualifications were
repealed by Article 18 of the constitution.

Conclusion

The practice of untouchability and the addition of titles have been abolished with
unquestionable words. That is why the practice of untouchability is a crime and anyone who
does so is punished by law. But Article 18 abolishes the conferral of titles in different ways.
It is to be stated that Article18 is not like Article 17 which gives punishment to the person
who has breached any obligation, as per law. We also should remember that the law on the
elimination of untouchability and abolition of titles must be applied in practice and in spirit to
achieve the purpose of social equality, social justice, and the rule of law.

7|Page

You might also like