Article 17- Abolition of

Untouchability 

Presented by: 
Md Mujtaba (IPL01075)
Mehika Khatri (IPL01076)
 Central Government Act 
Article 17 in The Constitution of India, 1949

Abolition of Untouchability: Untouchability is abolished and its

practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any
disability arising out of untouchability shall be an offense
punishable in accordance with the law. 
 Supreme Court of India
State Of Karnataka vs Appa Balu Ingale And Others (1st
December, 1992)

Bench: K Singh, K Ramaswamy

 FACTS OF THE CASE 

The lawsuit revolves around an event in which members of the Harijan community were threatened
with being denied access to a public borewell. According to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses,
the borewell was being erected around 15 feet from the harijan community. At around 9:30 p.m. on the
day of the event, water poured from the well during the drilling procedure. At the mentioned site,
there were groups of people from both the Hindu and Harijan communities. Hindus had collected
water from the well to do pooja at the temple at the completion of a pooja performed by young Hindu
ladies. The complainant and prosecution witnesses had planned to take water from the same well and
had brought pots with them. The responses, on the other hand, asked them not to collect water from
the well at this moment. The rationale provided to them was that they were members of the Harijan
community and had access to a separate well from which they could take water.
The Harijans were further hampered by the responders, who threatened them with a pistol if they did
not comply. The complainants avoided collecting water from the well because they were afraid of
suffering serious repercussions.
 ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

Were the accused punishable under the application of

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution? 

Did they carry out an act that promoted the practice of

"untouchability" against the community of the plaintiff? 
 ARGUMENTS 

Advocate supporting the defendant: He marked that the members belonging to the
Harijan community were not forcibly restrained from drawing out water. Instead, they
were insisted by his innocent clients to do the same from another bore-well that was
specially constructed only for the use of Harijans. 

Advocates on behalf of the plaintiff: The defendants were accused of preventing the
complainant party from drawing water from a recently dug-up bore well by displaying
force on the grounds that they were untouchables. The prosecution presented four
Harijans as witnesses.
 JUDGEMENT 
• This case has gone through several phases. First, all of the defendants were found guilty and sentenced to simple
imprisonment and a fine in the trial court. Two of the defendants were acquitted after appealing to the Additional
Sessions Judge. The remaining three guilty defendants filed a petition with the High Court for a retrial. The
prosecution witnesses' testimony was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court because the statements were
not expressed verbatim in their testimony. The remaining three defendants were acquitted as a consequence of this.
The country's highest court issued the ultimate decision.

• After careful analysis of the prosecution's evidence, the court concluded that the Harijan community's social
impairment was imposed with the threat of using a pistol. The complainants were denied access to the well on the
grounds that they were untouchables, which has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. While agreeing with the
bench's decision, it was noted that the "sociological and constitutional angulations" of Article 17 must be considered.

• As a result, the conviction and sentences imposed on the accused party were agreed upon, and the claimant's appeal
was granted, with the observation that their right to equal access to public resources had been curtailed, and they had
instead become victims of the already altered practice of untouchability (Article 17). They were also deprived of their
right to be free from discrimination based on caste (violation of Article 16). 
 REASONING

The justice held that the purpose of article 17 and the constitution under Protection of Civil Rights
Act, 1955 is to liberate society from blind and ritualistic conformity to cultural values that have
destroyed their ethical or moral roots. This aims to create a new paradigm for society that is equality
for the Dalits, on the equal basis with the general population, lack of disability, limitations or bans on
the caste or faith grounds, abundance of resources and a sense of becoming a member in the
mainstream Society of natural life.

The Supreme Court of India in this case held that the abolition of untouchability under article 17 of
the constitution, was in order to establish a new ideal for society based on the principles of
egalitarianism. As a result, the conviction and sentences imposed on the accused party were agreed
upon, and the claimant's appeal was granted, with the observation that their right to equal access to
public resources had been curtailed, and they had instead become victims of the already altered
practice of untouchability (Article 17). They were also deprived of their right to be free from
discrimination based on caste (violation of Article 16).

The accused party was also liable under the Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. 
 CASE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

The court held that the term untouchability has not been defined either in the constitution or in the
improvised acts because it is not capable of any precise definition as it would reduce and limit its scope
of implementation. It is to be kept in mind that punishment under the purview of this article is only to
be made if the practice of the same has taken place not in its literal or grammatical sense. In the
presented case it was held that the abolition of untouchability is in itself complete and its effect in all-
pervading applicable to state action as well as acts or omissions by individuals, institutions,
organizations or juristic body of people, so to speak. 

The literal meaning of the term is to be defined through its historical developments or practices. It was
held by the court that every caste-based discrimination would fall under the application of article
17. Hence, the main objective of article 17 was declared to end in all disabilities, restrictions,
prohibitions imposed upon any person on the ground of religion or caste. 
The issue of untouchability is one of class conflict. It's a battle between Hindu castes and untouchables. This is not a case
of one individual being treated unfairly. This is a case of one class committing injustice against another. This conflict is
linked to one's social standing. This conflict illustrates how one class should maintain its ties with another. The Dalits
face high-level prejudice as well as the challenge of reclaiming their manhood. Dalits are handicapped, discriminated
against, and subjected to injustice on a daily basis in every part of the country. Dalits must be mindful of the need to
struggle for the abolition of untouchability, to demand equal treatment, position, and opportunity, as well as equal civil,
legal, social, and financial liberties, as well as the dignity of the individual. 

As a result, the majority of Dalits continue to be oppressed by the practice of untouchability. It is the responsibility of the
state to protect them and to provide them with social justice. The march of the law should match to protect life, and
there should be a tangible improvement in the Dalits' quality of life; equality of opportunity and status, social, economic,
and political justice to relieve them of the trails, tortures, and tribulations they have endured for centuries due to
historical reasons. The handicaps, impairments, and miseries to which they are subjected, as well as the limits or
circumstances to which they are subjected, must be eliminated and redressed under the rule of law, with pragmatic
interpretations filling in the gaps. As a result, the law should be implemented, interpreted, and evidence assessed using
the constitutional credo and ethos as a touchstone, and any deviation would dissolve and abnegate the fundamental
doctrine.