Article 17: The Constitution’s Moral Command Against Untouchability

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution is not merely a legal provision; it is a profound moral and social declaration.¹ In a single, powerful sentence, it strikes at the heart of a deeply entrenched and dehumanizing social practice that has plagued Indian society for centuries. Unlike many other fundamental rights that are subject to restrictions, Article 17 is absolute in its command, reflecting the unequivocal commitment of the Constitution’s framers to create a society free from the stain of caste-based discrimination. A review of this article reveals its unique nature, the legislative framework built upon it, and its continuing, vital struggle for relevance in modern India.

The Uncompromising Text: A Declaration of Abolition:

“Abolition of Untouchability.— ‘Untouchability’ is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden.² The enforcement of any disability arising out of ‘Untouchability’ shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.”³

The key features that make this article so powerful are:

1. An Absolute Right: Unlike rights under Article 19 (Freedom of Speech), which are subject to “reasonable restrictions,” Article 17 is an absolute prohibition. There are no exceptions or conditions under which the practice of untouchability can be justified. It is constitutionally impermissible in its entirety.
2. Horizontal and Vertical Application: The right is enforceable not only against the State (vertically) but also against private individuals (horizontally). It criminalizes the practice by any person, making it a rare fundamental right that directly regulates social relations.⁴
3. A Punishable Offence: The article is not just a declaration. It mandates that Parliament enact a law to prescribe punishment for the practice. This transforms the constitutional ideal into an enforceable legal reality.

The Deliberate Vagueness of ‘Untouchability’

Interestingly, the term “untouchability” is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. This was a deliberate choice by the framers. They believed that providing a specific, exhaustive definition would inadvertently limit its scope. By leaving it undefined, they empowered the judiciary to interpret it broadly and inclusively, allowing it to cover not just literal physical avoidance but every form of social prejudice, discrimination, and ostracism historically practiced against the so-called “depressed classes.” The Mysore High Court, in a key judgment, affirmed that the term is not to be understood in its literal or grammatical sense but in the historical context of the practices directed against specific sections of society.⁵

The Legislative Armour: Enforcing the Command

As mandated by Article 17 (and enabled by Article 35), Parliament has enacted two major laws to give teeth to this constitutional provision.⁶

1. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: Originally called the Untouchability (Offences) Act, this law was the first legislative step. It prescribes penalties for a range of offences, such as:
   • Preventing a person from entering a place of public worship or using public resources like wells and tanks.⁷
   • Justifying untouchability on historical, philosophical, or religious grounds.
   • Enforcing occupational, social, or business-related disabilities against any person on the ground of untouchability.
     The Act makes the offences non-compoundable and increases the penalties for repeat offenders.

2. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This was a more stringent and comprehensive law enacted to address the continuing violence and humiliation faced by SCs and STs. Recognizing that the 1955 Act was insufficient to tackle grave offences, the “Atrocities Act” created a new category of crimes.⁸ It includes not just practices of untouchability but also a wide array of humiliating acts, such as:

1. • Forcing a member of an SC/ST to eat or drink an inedible or obnoxious substance.
   • Verbally abusing someone by caste name in a public place.
   • Wrongfully dispossessing them of their land or interfering with their water resources.
   • Socially or economically boycotting them.
     The Act also provides for the establishment of Special Courts for the speedy trial of these offences and outlines measures for the relief and rehabilitation of victims.

Judicial Interpretation and Contemporary Relevance

The judiciary has consistently upheld the spirit of Article 17. The Supreme Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) affirmed that the protections under Article 17 are available against private individuals and it is the constitutional duty of the State to take necessary steps to ensure that these rights are not violated.

Despite this robust constitutional and legal framework, the fight against untouchability is far from over. The ideals of Article 17 continue to face challenges from deeply ingrained social prejudices.⁹ News reports even today highlight instances of:

• Caste-based segregation in schools and villages.
• Dalit communities being denied entry into temples or access to common water sources.¹⁰
• The persistence of manual scavenging, a practice inextricably linked to historical notions of untouchability.¹¹
• Social boycotts and violence against individuals for inter-caste marriages.

The Unfinished Revolution

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution represents an unfinished social revolution. It is a powerful legal and moral statement that abolished a practice of profound injustice in one stroke.¹² The supporting legislation has created a framework for its eradication. However, the true success of Article 17 lies not just in courtrooms and statutes but in its realization in the social fabric of India. It serves as a constant reminder that the constitutional promise of dignity and equality requires a continuous effort to transform not only laws but also hearts and minds, ensuring that the shadows of untouchability are banished forever.