Article 17 of Indian Constitution: Abolition of Untouchability

• Absolute: unlike Article 19, there are no reasonable restrictions.
• Horizontal: enforceable against private persons as well as the State. In People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (Asiad Workers, 1982) the Supreme Court said Articles 17, 23 and 24 bind private individuals, and the State must act when they are violated.
• Not defined in the Constitution or the PCR Act. It means the social disabilities imposed on people because of their birth in certain castes. The word is placed in inverted commas to show this historical meaning.
• Linked articles: Article 15(2) (access to shops, wells, tanks, roads), Article 23 (no forced labour), Article 25(2)(b) (temple entry for all Hindus), Article 35 (only Parliament makes the penal law), Article 46 (protect SC/ST from social injustice) and Article 338 (National Commission for Scheduled Castes).
• In State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (1993) the Supreme Court called untouchability an indirect form of slavery and asked courts to treat PCR cases seriously.

The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 was amended and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976, with stricter punishment. These acts are offences when done on the ground of untouchability:

• Stopping a person from entering a place of public worship or praying there.
• Denying access to a shop, restaurant, hotel, hospital, public entertainment or the use of utensils kept there.
• Denying use of a well, tank, tap, bathing ghat, road, cremation ground or any public place.
• Refusing admission to a hospital, dispensary or educational institution, or a hostel.
• Refusing to sell goods or render services.
• Insulting a person of a Scheduled Caste on the ground of untouchability, or preaching or justifying untouchability, directly or indirectly.
• Forcing anyone to do scavenging, sweeping or removing carcasses on that ground, or social boycott of a person for exercising these rights.

The punishment ladder

Challenges that remained (from the notes)

• Punishments under the PCR Act were light, so they did not deter.
• Untouchability continued in hidden forms in villages and even in cities: separate utensils, denial of temple entry, bans on wedding processions, social boycott.
• Victims rarely complained because of fear, poverty and social pressure, and conviction rates stayed low.
• Article 17 protects everyone, but in practice the victims were mostly Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. A law focused on them was needed.

So Parliament passed the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:

• Punishment generally of 6 months to 5 years with fine, and much more for grave crimes.
• No anticipatory bail (Section 18).
• The 2015 amendment (in force from 26 January 2016) added new offences such as tonsuring, garlanding with footwear, denying access to irrigation, forcing to dispose of carcasses and social or economic boycott; it created exclusive Special Courts with charge-sheets in 60 days and trial within two months where possible.
• Back-and-forth in court: Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (20 March 2018) allowed anticipatory bail and a preliminary inquiry before arrest. After protests, Parliament added Section 18A in August 2018 to undo this, and in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (10 February 2020) the Supreme Court upheld Section 18A, saying courts may still grant anticipatory bail only where no prima facie case is made out.
• Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020): an insult is an offence under the Act when it is made because of the victim's caste and in public view.

• Manual scavenging is untouchability in its harshest form. It is banned by the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. In Safai Karamchari Andolan (2014) the Court ordered ₹10 lakh compensation for sewer deaths; in Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India (20 October 2023) it raised this to ₹30 lakh and said governments must end the practice. Sewer and septic-tank deaths are still reported, and the Centre's NAMASTE scheme (2023) aims at mechanised cleaning.
• Caste in prisons (3 October 2024): in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India the Supreme Court struck down jail manual rules that gave cleaning and sweeping work by caste and called them a violation of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21 and 23. States had to change their manuals.
• Temple entry: courts continue to order access where Dalits are kept out of village temples and festivals; denial of entry on caste grounds is an offence under the PCR and Atrocities Acts.
• Data: the NCRB "Crime in India" reports each year record tens of thousands of crimes against Scheduled Castes, while cases filed under the PCR Act are very few, showing that most cases are now booked under the stronger Atrocities Act.