Article 17&18 (Abolition of Untouchability & Titles) of Constitution of India

In this article we discussed about the Abolition of Untouchability & Titles under Article 17 & 18 of the Constitution of India

 

Introduction

 

The Constitution of India stands as a beacon of democratic ideals and social justice, enshrining the fundamental rights and principles that form the bedrock of the nation's ethos. Among these, Article 17 and Article 18 hold a significant place by addressing the issues of untouchability, abolition of titles, and ensuring equality for all citizens.

 

Article 17

 

Article 17 abolished the practice of untouchability. Accordingly, the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, was enacted, later amended and renamed (in 1976) as the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.

 

While ‘untouchability’ has not been defined in the Constitution or in the Civil Rights Act, the term is assumed to have a clear connotation - any social practice which looks down on some depressed classes solely on account of their birth and prevents them from having any kind of contact with people of the so- called upper classes/castes. According to the Act, it is a punishable offence to commit any of the following acts on the ground of untouchability:

 

(i) refuse admission to any person to public institutions;

(ii) prevent any person from offering prayers in any place of public worship;

(iii) subject a person to any disability in access to shops, public restaurants, or public entertainment or source or water or public utility.

 

In 1976 the Act was enlarged to include the following as offences within its scope: insulting a member of a Scheduled Caste on the ground of untouchability, preaching untouchability, justifying untouchability on historical, religious or philosophical grounds or on the basis of the tradition of the caste/system.

 

The punishment for any such offence under the Act may range from one to two years' imprisonment A person convicted of the offence of 'untouchability' shall be disqualified for election to any legislature. All offences under the Act are cognizable.

Article 18

 

Prohibits the State from conferring any title. Military or academic distinctions do not come under this ban. These distinctions, as held by the Supreme Court and awards by way of recognition of merit or extraordinary work and not titles of nobility and hence they do not violate Articles 14 or 18. No Indian citizen can accept a title from a foreign State. However, this ban does not prevent other public institutions, such as universities, from conferring titles or honours by way of honouring leaders or men of merit.

 

Recently, in Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 770, a five Jude Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that National Award do not amount to be titles within the meaning of Article 18(1). They should not be used as suffixes or prefixes. The Court noticed that the Prime Minister's Committee on Awards and Honours, 1948, had recommended certain limitations in terms of numbers but these had not been incorporated in the extant guidelines. The Court said that most countries had provided for such limitations in respect of their civil awards for the obvious reasons that the importance of the awards was not diluted. The Court thus directed that a high-level committee should be appointed to look into the existing guidelines for conferring these National Awards.

 

Subsequent to the decision in Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 770, the Union Government appointed a high-level Review Committee, chaired by the Vice President, to go into the existing guidelines and fix the criteria for the selection of persons for Padma award so that it would enhance respect for these awards and not to dilute their value. This committee suggested the setting up of State-level Committees to forward recommendations to the Centre. The names so recommended are to be reviewed at the Centre, by a committee including the Cabinet Secretary, the Home Secretary and Secretary to the president of India. After this Committee finalises, the names are to be submitted to the Prime Minister's Office and Committee finalises, the names are to be submitted to the Prime Minister's Office and finally sent to the President. As far as the Bharat Ratna awards are concerned, there are no guidelines. (See The Tribune, February 20, 1998.

 

Conclusion

 

Article 17 and Article 18 of the Constitution of India are significant not only for their legal implications but also for the profound social messages they convey. Article 17's abolition of untouchability is a direct challenge to centuries-old discriminatory practices, promoting the idea of equality and human dignity for all citizens. Article 18's stance against titles and honors of nobility underscores the importance of recognizing individuals based on their accomplishments rather than their background.