ARTICLE 15

PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION
Clause – 2 : It states that no citizen shall, on grounds only of, religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition
with regard to-

a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and place of public entertainment; or

b) The use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort
maintained wholly of partly out of state funds or dedicated to the use of general
public.

This clause contains the provision of a general nature and is not confined to the State
only. On the basis of this provision it has been held that if a section of the public puts
forward a claim for an exclusive use of public well, it must establish that the well was
dedicated to the exclusive use of that particular section of the public and not to the use of
general public as decided in case of Arumugha v. Narayana1.

The word ‘shop’ used here is in generic sense which includes any premises where goods
are sold either in retail or wholesale or both and also places where service is rendered to
customers. Hence there can’t be shops or public restaurants or places of public
entertainment like hotels, exhibition, cinema, coffee shops etc. to be exclusively reserved
for member of particular caste, religion, race etc. As in case of Anumugam Servai v.
State of Tamil Nadu2, Justice Katju condemned the practice in Tamil Nadu tea shop for
having different kinds of tumblers for serving tea to Schedule caste and others.

Second part of clause two is regarding the use of wells, bathing ghats , roads and places
of public resort that are “wholly or partly are maintained out of state fund or dedicated to
use of general public.” Places which are maintained by state and are owned by private
individuals, they must be dedicated to the use of general public. In case of Lakshamidhar
Mishra v. Rangalal3, the Privy Council had held that there could not be a dedication to a
limited section of public.

On ground ‘only’

The word ‘only’ connotes that what is discountenanced is discrimination purely and
solely on account of any of the grounds mentioned. Discrimination based on any of
these grounds and also on other grounds is not hit by articles 15(1) and 15(2) though it
may be hit by article 14.

1
AIR 1958 Mad 282
2
(2011) 6 SCC 405, 409
3
AIR 1950 PC 56
State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society4, In this case the issue was the validity
of the Bombay Government Order directing schools having English as medium of
instruction to admit only Anglo-Indians and citizens of Asiatic descent. The Court
held the order invalid since the result of the order was the denial of admission to all
pupils whose mother tounge was not English i.e., they were discriminated on the
ground of language only.

ARTICLE 17
ABOLITION OF UNTOUCHABILITY
Article 17 - “Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden.
The enforcement of any disability arising out of “Untouchability” shall be an
offence punishable in accordance with the law.

The word untouchability is defined neither in the constitution nor in any acts. It refers to
a social practice which looks down upon certain depressed classes solely on account of
their birth and makes any discrimination against them on this ground from centuries. The
word would include persons who are treated untouchables either temporarily or otherwise
for various reasons such as their suffering from epidemic or contagious disease or on
account of social boycott resulting from caste or other disputes.

Inclusion of this provision and article 15(2) helps in eradication of untouchability from
Indian societies. Both provisions are significant from point of equality before law as both
serves to guarantee social justice and dignity of citizens, the twin privileges that were
denied to a vast section from centuries.

The main object of article 17 is to bar the practice of untouchability in any form. To give
effect to article 17, Parliament enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955,
prescribing punishment for practicing untouchability in various forms. In 1976, the Act
was renamed as the Protection of Civil Right Act, 1955. In this amended act the
expression civil right is defined as any right accruing to a person by reason of abolition of

4
AIR 1954 SC 561
untouchability under article 17 of the constitution. In this amended act privately owned
places of worship were brought within its purview, preaching of untouchability or its
justification made an offence.

Article 35 operates primarily as a restriction on the legislative power of the State

Legislature, and since the Constitution is prospective in its operation, it does not
render any existing criminal law forbidding the practice of untouchability void.

Nepal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh5, It was held that the subject-matter of article
17 is not untouchability in its liberal or grammatical sense but the practice as it
developed historically in India. The Court emphasized that the word 'untouchability' in
article 17 was placed in inverted commas.

State v. Gulab Singh6, The Allahabad High Court was asked to hold the U.P. removal
of Social Disabilities Act, 1947 ultra-virus the constitution since it dealt with the
matters that were reserved for parliament under article 35 & High Court rejected the
contention and held that article 35 refers to future laws and does not render past laws
in the matter void.

People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India7, The Supreme Court has
held that the fundamental rights under article 17 are available against private
individuals and it is the constitutional duty of the State to take necessary steps to see
that these fundamental rights are not violated.

State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale8, the Court held that the object of article 17
is to liberate the society from blind and ritualistic adherence and traditional belief
which has lost all legal or moral bases. It seeks to establish new ideas for society.

5
AIR 1985 SC 84
6
AIR 1953 AII 483
7
(1982) 2 SCC 494
8
AIR 1993 SC 1126