Constitutional Provisions on Untouchability: Article 17,18 | Constitutional Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Abolition of Untouchability 

• Abolition of untouchability in itself is complete and its effect is all pervading applicable to state action as well as acts or omissions by individuals, institutions or juristic body of persons. The main object of Art. 17 is to ban the practice of untouchability in any form.
• To give effect to Art. 17, Parliament enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, prescribing punishments for practising untouchability in various forms. In 1976, the Act was renamed as the "Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955".
• The word "untouchability" has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the Act, because it is not capable of any precise definition. It has however been held that the subject-mater of Art. 17 is not untouchability in its literal or grammatical sense but the "practice as it had developed historically in this country".
• Therefore, treating of persons as untouchables either temporarily or otherwise for various reasons, e.g., suffering from an epidemic or a contagious disease, or social observances associated with birth or death, or social boycott resulting from caste or other disputes do not come within the purview of Art. 17.
• Art. 17 is concerned with those regarded untouchables in the course of historic development. Thus, instigation of a social boycott of a few individuals, or their exclusion from worship, religious services or food, etc., is not within the contemplation of Art. 17.
• It is not clear whether Art. 17 would prohibit outcasting or ex-communication of a person of a higher caste from his caste. The State Legislature passed a law to improve the conditions of living of untouchables. Accordingly, the Act provided for acquisition of land for constructing a colony for them.
• It was argued against the validity of the law that the construction of a colony would not be in conformity with Art. 17. The Madras High Court rejected the argument. The Court stated that what Art. 17 prohibits is singling out the Harijan community for hostile treatment as a socially backward community.
• By no process of reasoning, could Art. 17 be held to prohibit the State from introducing a scheme for improving the condition of living of such persons. The Court also referred to Art. 15(4) in this connection.
• The Supreme Court has stated that whenever any Fundamental Right like Art. 17 is violated by a private individual, it is the constitutional obligation of the state to take the necessary steps for the purpose of interdicting such violation and ensuring observance of the Fundamental Right by the private individual who is transgressing the same.
• The state is under a constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation of the Fundamental Right of such person. Reference may also be made in this connection to Arts. 14, 21, 23, 25 and 29, discussed later.
• The Directive Principles, especially Arts. 38 and 46, obligate the state to render socio-economic and political justice to Dalits and improve the quality of their life. "The abolition of untouchability is the arch of the Constitution to make its preamble meaningful and to integrate the Dalits in the national mainstream".

 Abolition of Titles 

• Article 18(1) prohibits the state from conferring any 'title' except a military or academic distinction.
•  Art. 18(2)  prohibits citizens of India from accepting any title from a foreign government.
• A foreigner holding any office of profit or trust under the state cannot accept any title from any foreign state without the consent of the President  [Art. 18(3)]  .
• No person holding any office of profit under the state is to accept, without the consent of the President, any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign state  [Art. 18(4)]  .