Case Law on Untouchability in India

In Jai Singh v. Union of India, the High Court of Rajasthan and the Madras High Court case of Devrajiah v. B. Padmana defined the word untouchability. Note: There is an act of untouchability that is not mentioned in any law, and then in such cases, the court will decide which ones should be included in that law. This article deals with a very old and discriminatory practice of Indian society, untouchability. In British times, Mahatma Gandhi, Jyotibha Phule and BR Ambedkar were the leading figures against the practice of untouchability. Mahatma Gandhi even went ahead, saying that “untouchability is a sin of Hinduism.” In addition to the Civil Rights Protection Act, there is another law that describes the penalty for untouchability, namely the ST-SC Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. This law also contains other important information, for example: how the procedure is to be conducted, the discharge available, the formation of special courts, etc. Any person who, for reasons of “untouchability”, prevents any person from (2) Any rule adopted by the central government under this Act shall, as soon as practicable after its promulgation, be adopted by any House of Parliament during its session for a total period of thirty days, which may be included in a session or in two or more successive sessions: submitted; and if, before the end of the session immediately after the above-mentioned session or successive sessions, the two Chambers agree to amend the rules, or if both Chambers agree that the rule should not be adopted; the provision will then take effect only in that amended form or, where appropriate, without effect; However, such modification or cancellation shall not affect the validity of acts previously performed under this Article. (1) A person who, by reason of his or her “untouchability”, forces a person to paint or sweep a carcass or to remove a carcass or to kill an animal or to remove the umbilical cord or perform any other work of a similar nature is deemed to have imposed a disability resulting from “untouchability”. Since we know that section 17 also provides for a penalty for untouchability, that means that the penalty can be imposed by section 35.

(c)by spoken or written words, or by visible or other signs or representations, incites or encourages a person or group of persons, or the public in general, to practice `untouchability` in any form: 20 or Article 17 eliminates untouchability. Untouchability has been prohibited and their practice will be punished by law in one way or another. In the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment was created for the purpose of guaranteeing and maintaining the rights granted to newly freed black slaves. The equality clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevented states from discriminating against blacks. In the areas of labour law, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 repealed a number of recent Supreme Court decisions that severely limited the effectiveness of evidence of racial and gender discrimination. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have made it more difficult to prove racial discrimination under Title VII. Indian and American laws have sought to integrate substantive equality into a framework of formal equality.

24.7.07, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a competing resolution condemning the caste system and untouchability in India. Conclusion: In our society, there is still a sense of superiority of caste and birth. We can experience the practice of untouchability in the daily life around us, especially in rural and semi-urban areas of the country. Even in large metropolises, the inhumane practice of manual consumption of carrion is still there. According to a report by the Press Trust of India (PTI), on January 3, 2014, four tea room vendors were arrested by the Karnataka police for practicing untouchability when selling tea – they served tea in different types of cups to sterilize Hindus and SC/ST. The incident shows that the evil practice is so deeply rooted in Hindu society that it continues in one form or another, even after 70 years of independence. However, it can be said that things are slowly changing, the mindset of the modern generation is also changing. Today`s youth, with a modern education and a globalized perspective, see the social order from a different perspective of equality and impartiality, rather than from a religious or traditional perspective. Let us hope that the evil practice of untouchability will be removed from society as soon as possible, and that our country will usher in a new era of social equality and brotherhood that will be the true India of Gandhi and Ambedkar. Note: In order to avoid inviolability in the Constitution, the provisions of Article 15(2) are also appropriate.

Punishment for the application of religious handicaps. Any person who, by reason of his or her “untouchability”, prevents a person from (a) entering a place of public worship open to other persons who profess the same religion or section of religion as that person; or (b) worship or offer prayers or perform a religious service in a public place or worship, or bathe or use the water of a sacred reservoir, well, spring or stream, river or lake, or bathe in a ghat of such reservoir, watercourse in the same manner and to the same extent for other persons, who professes, or part of it, is authorized, as such, the same religion or part thereof as such a person; shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and a maximum of six months, a fine of not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees.