Notes: Fundamental Rights- 3 | Political Science & International Relations: Mains Optional - UPSC PDF Download

 Page 2


 
 
• Article 17 abolishes ‘untouchability’ and forbids its practice in any form. The enforcement of any disability 
arising out of untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. 
• In 1976, the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 has been comprehensively amended and renamed as the 
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 to enlarge the scope and make penal provisions more stringent.  
• The act defines civil rights as any right accruing to a person by reason of the abolition of untouchability by 
Article 17 of the Constitution. 
• The term ‘untouchability’ has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the Act. However, the Mysore 
High Court held that the subject matter of Article 17 is not untouchability in its literal or grammatical sense but 
the ‘practice as it had developed historically in the country’. 
• The Supreme Court held that the right under Article 17 is available against private individuals and it is the 
constitutional obligations of the State to take necessary action to ensure that this right is not  violated.  
• The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted 
to prevent atrocities against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. 
• In 2018, the parliament of India passed the Schedule Caste and   Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 
Amendment Bill, 2018, to bypass the ruling of the Supreme Court of India laying down procedures for arrests 
under the Act. 
•  On March 20, 2018, the apex court (Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra) had taken note of the 
rampant misuse of the stringent SC/ST Act against government servants and private individuals and said there 
would be no immediate arrest on any complaint filed under the law 
• Alongside, the police was prohibited from registering a first information report (FIR) without preliminary inquiry 
and making an arrest sans the written permission of the appointing authority if the accused is a public servant, 
and senior superintendent of police (SSP) in the case of non-public servants. 
• The bill inserts section 18A (1) (a) in the 1989 Act, that says a “preliminary enquiry shall not be required for 
registration of an FIR against any person.”  
• The Bill also inserts Section 18A (1) (b), which  says “the investigating officer shall not require approval for the 
arrest if necessary, of any person against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act 
has been made and no procedure, other than that provided under this Act or the Code, shall apply.” 
• The amendments rule out any provision for anticipatory bail for a person accused of atrocities against SC/STs, 
notwithstanding any court order. 
• The marginalised face procedural hurdles such as non-registration of cases, procedural delays in investigation, 
arrests and filing of charge sheets, delays in trials and low conviction rates on account of which, the deterrent 
provisions notwithstanding, atrocities against SCs/STs have continued unabated, necessitating the amendments 
passed in 2016. 
• Analysing the same NCRB data, at the end of 2016, 89% of cases for SCs and 87.1% of cases for STs remained 
pending for trial.  
• The apex court, instead of recognising the low conviction rate under the act, made its observation on the basis 
of a small number of cases, 5,347 for SCs and 912 for STs, which were found to be false after the investigation. 
Further, the police do not arrest the accused immediately investigate cases in time, interview or cross-examine 
all the victims/witnesses during investigation, and fail to provide adequate protection to victims and their 
families during and after the investigation. 
•  It is also seen that the time taken to complete police investigation in the counter-cases is much faster than in 
the PoA cases. In the State of Madhya Pradesh v Ram Krishna Balothia (1995) case,the Supreme Court held that 
Section 18 of the PoA Act does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. 
• It   further observed that the exclusion of Section 438 of the CrPC from the PoA Act had to be viewed in the 
context of the prevailing social conditions, and the resultant apprehension that perpetrators of such atrocities 
are likely to threaten and intimidate victims and prevent or obstruct the prosecution ofoffenders, if they are 
Page 3


 
 
• Article 17 abolishes ‘untouchability’ and forbids its practice in any form. The enforcement of any disability 
arising out of untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. 
• In 1976, the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 has been comprehensively amended and renamed as the 
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 to enlarge the scope and make penal provisions more stringent.  
• The act defines civil rights as any right accruing to a person by reason of the abolition of untouchability by 
Article 17 of the Constitution. 
• The term ‘untouchability’ has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the Act. However, the Mysore 
High Court held that the subject matter of Article 17 is not untouchability in its literal or grammatical sense but 
the ‘practice as it had developed historically in the country’. 
• The Supreme Court held that the right under Article 17 is available against private individuals and it is the 
constitutional obligations of the State to take necessary action to ensure that this right is not  violated.  
• The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted 
to prevent atrocities against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. 
• In 2018, the parliament of India passed the Schedule Caste and   Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 
Amendment Bill, 2018, to bypass the ruling of the Supreme Court of India laying down procedures for arrests 
under the Act. 
•  On March 20, 2018, the apex court (Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v State of Maharashtra) had taken note of the 
rampant misuse of the stringent SC/ST Act against government servants and private individuals and said there 
would be no immediate arrest on any complaint filed under the law 
• Alongside, the police was prohibited from registering a first information report (FIR) without preliminary inquiry 
and making an arrest sans the written permission of the appointing authority if the accused is a public servant, 
and senior superintendent of police (SSP) in the case of non-public servants. 
• The bill inserts section 18A (1) (a) in the 1989 Act, that says a “preliminary enquiry shall not be required for 
registration of an FIR against any person.”  
• The Bill also inserts Section 18A (1) (b), which  says “the investigating officer shall not require approval for the 
arrest if necessary, of any person against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act 
has been made and no procedure, other than that provided under this Act or the Code, shall apply.” 
• The amendments rule out any provision for anticipatory bail for a person accused of atrocities against SC/STs, 
notwithstanding any court order. 
• The marginalised face procedural hurdles such as non-registration of cases, procedural delays in investigation, 
arrests and filing of charge sheets, delays in trials and low conviction rates on account of which, the deterrent 
provisions notwithstanding, atrocities against SCs/STs have continued unabated, necessitating the amendments 
passed in 2016. 
• Analysing the same NCRB data, at the end of 2016, 89% of cases for SCs and 87.1% of cases for STs remained 
pending for trial.  
• The apex court, instead of recognising the low conviction rate under the act, made its observation on the basis 
of a small number of cases, 5,347 for SCs and 912 for STs, which were found to be false after the investigation. 
Further, the police do not arrest the accused immediately investigate cases in time, interview or cross-examine 
all the victims/witnesses during investigation, and fail to provide adequate protection to victims and their 
families during and after the investigation. 
•  It is also seen that the time taken to complete police investigation in the counter-cases is much faster than in 
the PoA cases. In the State of Madhya Pradesh v Ram Krishna Balothia (1995) case,the Supreme Court held that 
Section 18 of the PoA Act does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. 
• It   further observed that the exclusion of Section 438 of the CrPC from the PoA Act had to be viewed in the 
context of the prevailing social conditions, and the resultant apprehension that perpetrators of such atrocities 
are likely to threaten and intimidate victims and prevent or obstruct the prosecution ofoffenders, if they are 
granted anticipatory bail. 
• Article 18 abolishes titles and makes four provisions in that regard: 
o It prohibits the state from conferring any title (except a military or academic distinction) on an body 
whether a citizen or a foreigner. 
o It prohibits a citizen of India from accepting any title from any foreign state. 
o 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. 
o No citizen or foreigner holding any office of profit or trust under the State is to accept any present, 
emolument or office from or under any foreign State without the consent of the president. 
• In 1996, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the National Awards- Bharat Ratna, Padma 
Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Sri as these are not violative of the right to equality. However, it 
also ruled that they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes to the names of awardees. Otherwise, they 
should forfeit the awards.