The concept of "Untouchability" has been abolished, and its practise in any form is prohibited. Any disability imposed as a result of "Untouchability" will be considered a criminal offence punishable by law.
The imposition of any disability resulting from untouchability is a criminal offence punishable by law. The Untouchability (Offenses) Act of 1955 was comprehensively amended and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955 in 1976 to broaden the scope and strengthen the penal provisions. The act defines a civil right as any right conferred on a person as a result of the Constitution's Article 17 abolition of untouchability. In neither the Constitution nor the Act, the term "untouchability" is defined.
The Mysore High Court, on the other hand, held that the subject of Article 17 is "practise as it had developed historically in the country," not "untouchability" in the literal or grammatical sense. It refers to the social disadvantages that certain groups of people face as a result of their birth into certain castes. As a result, it excludes a few individuals from social boycotts or religious services, among other things. Offenses committed on the basis of untouchability are punishable by imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to 500 dollars, or both, under the Protection of Civil Rights Act (1955). A person convicted of the crime of "untouchability" is ineligible for election to the House of Commons or the state legislature. The following acts are defined as offences under the act:
• Preventing anyone from entering or worshipping in any place of public worship; • Using traditional, religious, philosophical, or other grounds to justify untouchability; • Refusing entry to any store, hotel, or public entertainment venue; • Insulting someone from a scheduled caste because of their untouchability; • Refusing to admit people to public-benefit hospitals, educational institutions, or hostels; • Directly or indirectly preaching untouchability; and • Refusing to sell anything or provide services to anyone.The Supreme Court ruled that the right under Article 17 can be used against private individuals, and that it is the State's constitutional obligation to ensure that this right is not violated.
Abolition of Titles (Article 18) Article 18 abolishes titles in order to achieve equality and reads as follows: 1. The State shall not bestow any title that is not a military or academic honour. 2. No Indian citizen shall accept any foreign state's title.3. No person who is not a citizen of India may accept any title from any foreign state while holding any office of profit or trust under the State without the President's consent.
4. No person holding a profit or trust office under the State may accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State without the President's consent.
Article 18 of the Indian Constitution, titled "Abolition of Titles," forbids the State from bestowing titles on anyone, whether a citizen or not. Military and academic distinctions, on the other hand, are exempt from the prohibition because they serve as an incentive to improve the state's military power, which is essential to its survival, as well as scientific endeavours, which are essential to its prosperity. Article 18 clearly states that hereditary titles of nobility conferred by colonial states, such as Maharaja, Raj Bahadur, Rai Bahadur, Rai Saheb, Dewan Bahadur, and others, are prohibited because they violate the principle of equal status for all. Clause (2) makes it illegal for an Indian citizen to accept any title from a foreign state.
Clause (3) states that a foreigner holding a profit or trust office under the State may not accept any title from another country without the President's permission. This is to ensure his long-term loyalty to the government he serves and to keep foreign influence out of government affairs and administration. Clause (4) states that no person holding any office or trait under the State may accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign State without the President's consent. The conferring of titles such as "Bharat Ratna," "Padma Vibhushan," "Padma Shri," and others is not prohibited under Article 18 because they merely denote State recognition of citizens' good work in various fields of activity.
These honours appear to fall under the heading of "academic distinctions." These national awards, which were formally instituted in January 1954 by two Presidential Notifications, are given on Republic Day in recognition of exceptional and distinguished services of high integrity in any field. These Presidential Notifications also state that these awards are open to anyone regardless of race, occupation, position, or sex, and that the decorations may be given posthumously. It was also made clear that these civilian awards cannot be used as titles and should not be added to the names of the awards as suffixes or prefixes. These awards were discontinued in 1977, but were resurrected in 1980. Since then, these National Awards have been presented on Republic Day every year.
The petitioners in Balaji Raghavan v Union of India challenged the validity of these National Awards and asked the court to stop the Indian government from conferring them. The National Awards were argued to be titles within the meaning of Article 18 of the Indian Constitution. It was also claimed that these awards are being abused, that the purpose for which they were established has been diluted, and that they are being given to people who are undeserving of them.
The Supreme Court ruled that national awards such as the Bharat Ratna, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Shri do not infringe on the principle of equality guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. These National Awards do not qualify as "titles" within the meaning of Article 18 and are thus not in violation of the Constitution. The equality theory does not rule out the possibility of recognising merit. The fundamental duties of every Indian citizen are outlined in Article 51-A of the Constitution.
In light of clause (f) of Article 51-A, a system of awards and decorations is required to recognise excellence in the performance of duties. The Government, on the other hand, was chastised by the Court for its "failure" to exercise sufficient restraint in bestowing these National Awards. The guidelines contained in the communiqué from the Ministry of Home Affairs for the selection of potential recipients are extremely broad, imprecise, open to abuse, and wholly unsatisfactory for the important goal that they appear to achieve, according to the Court. In a separate but concurring judgement, Justice Kuldip Singh takes a scathing look at what he calls successive governments' "non-application of mind" in granting the "Padma Awards."
It has already reached a point where those in power are rewarding political or narrow group interests for the time being. The Supreme Court suggested that the Prime Minister, in consultation with the President of India, appoint a high-level committee to investigate the matter. The Judges made it clear that the committee should keep in mind the Court's concern that the number of awards should not be so numerous that their value is diluted. It's also worth noting that breaking the above-mentioned title prohibition carries no penalties. Article 18 is merely a reference guide. However, it is up to the Parliament to enact legislation to deal with those who accept a title in violation of Article 18's prohibition. So far, no such legislation has been passed by Parliament.
