Untouchability
Context:
Article 17 of the Indian Constitution explicitly abolishes "untouchability" and forbids its practice in any form, making the enforcement of any disability arising out of it a punishable offence.
The Supreme Court of India has continually interpreted Article 17 not just as a legal provision, but as a foundational pillar for human dignity and social justice.
Supreme Court Judgements:
State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale,1993
The Supreme Court expressed concern over the continued prevalence of untouchability, explicitly categorizing it as an "indirect form of slavery".
The Court reinforced that the fundamental aim of Article 17 is to end the inhuman practice of treating fellow citizens as "dirty" or "untouchable" strictly by reason of their birth in certain castes. It established that the caste system and untouchability stand and fall together.
Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India (2014):
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court declared that the degrading practice of manual scavenging is deeply rooted in the concept of untouchability and constitutes a blatant violation of Article 17, alongside Article 21.
The Court mandated the absolute implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
The Sabarimala Temple Debate
A five-judge bench lifted the age restriction on women entering the Sabarimala temple.
During this ruling, the anti-untouchability clause (Article 17) was applied to argue against these menstruation-based restrictions.
Current Review:
A nine-judge bench is currently reviewing this.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna noted that untouchability has a specific historical context, questioning whether a biological cycle can be equated to "three-day untouchability."
The Centre further argued that the constitutional framers drafted Article 17 strictly to combat caste-based untouchability, not gender-based restrictions tied to the perceived attributes of a religious deity.