INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 17

INTERPRETATION OF STATUES

SUBMITTED TO – PROF. PINKY MEHTA

SUBMITTED BY

NAME- VAISHNAV NJ
PROGRAM- LLB
SEMESTER- II Semester
SIGNATURE-

1
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. FACTS OF THE PROBLEM 4

3. OBJECTIVE AND ISSUE IN THE PROBLEM 5

4. INTERPRETATION AND PRINCIPLE USED 5

5. CASE LAW 6

6. ANALYSIS 6

7. REFERENCES 7

2
INTRODUCTION
Eradication of untouchability was one of the vital step taken by the Independent India.
The constitution of India has guaranteed to all its citizens equality of status and of
opportunity and it has recognised the principle of fraternity assuring the dignity of the
individuals. The Constitution has laid down a system which is based on the principle of social
justice. Now Social justice is a fundamental right of a citizen.1
The major objective of Article 17 is to provide a backlash and debar people from
exercising untouchability in the name of traditions and historical exercises. It seeks to
establish a new and ideal society. The disabilities to which Dalits were subjected, have been
outlawed and subjecting them to those disabilities would be violative of the Part III and IV of
the Constitution.2
Article 17 abolishes “untouchability” and forbids its practise in any form. Practicing
this activity is considered to be offence and punishable in Law. It does not stop with a mere
declaration but announces that this forbidden ‘untouchability” is not to be henceforth
practised in any form. If it is so practised it shall be dealt with as an offence punishable in
accordance with the law.
During the early British period the concept of untouchability was opposed by many
rulers . But still they tolerated them to some extent because they were not prepared to face the
situation and didn't want to involve themselves in any controversies. There was some change
in the mentality of people towards untouchability and people of lower classes during the later
British periods because of the western education and the introduction of common law .
However it was the Indian constitution that made a huge difference. The Indian constitution
which was against any partiality on the basis of caste system abolished the concept of
untouchability in India .
The constitution achieved to solve the issue of untouchability in two ways by
1) Abolishing untouchability once and for all
2) Promoting the interest of the untouchables

1
Ashok kumar Gupta v State of U.P.(1997) 5 SCC. 201 (Para 26)
2
State of Karnataka v Appa Bala Ingale 1995 Supp. (4) SCC. 469 (paras 23&36) :AIR 1993 SC. 1126

3
FACTS OF THE PROBLEM:
RJ is a third year students of a national law universities. RJ traces his lineage from a higher
sub-caste of Brahmans. He grew up in a family who strongly believe in old practice of
untouchability and don’t eat food, that is cooked or touched by anyone not belonging to a
permissible caste within the caste hierarchy.
RJ also strongly follows his family values. He maintains a physical distance from people
traditionally belonging to untouchable caste. His friends, though they don’t approve of these
practices, and in fact many a times
Openly express their disapproval to him on such practices, still they accept RJ’s behaviour as
one of his eccentricities and they respect the distance that he maintains with them. He pays all
his fees including compulsory mess fees but he never eats in the mess. He usually sits on the
same desk which is unofficially reserved for him.
RJ lives a very routine and disciplined life because of his belief, he doesn’t eat non vegetarian
food, in fact RJ always carry his own water and food wherever he goes, RJ also do all regular
ritualistic daily religious obligations like, not eating before taking bath and performing
morning and evening Pooja, that takes around three hours of his day time. But he wakes up
early in the morning and performs all his daily karmas and almost always reaches class on
time at 8:30 in the morning and he is academically performing very satisfactorily.
Looking at his own personal commitment, his classmates , like his friends though
disapproving his behaviour voluntarily do not on sit on his desk and maintain a distance from
him, and don’t enter his room unless RJ invites them.
However, some students found his behaviour objectionable as it appears to them atrocious
and open violation of their right guaranteed under Article 17 of the Constitution of India.
A group of students filed a petition under article 32 before Supreme Court praying for an
order that will prohibit RJ from his this practice of untouchability.
RJ on the other hand argued that Article 17 intended to abolish untouchability in public space
and does not hit upon his kind of behaviour which are his personal choice of lifestyle and he
is not violating any laws and including his conducts within the purview of Article 17 is well
beyond the scope of intended purpose behind Article 17.
The matter is listed for final hearing.

4
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this project is to find out the principle behind the above mentioned case with
appropriate interpretation.
ISSUES
1. Will Article 32 will restrain RJ from his practice of untouchability ?
2. Does the act of RJ falls under right to privacy or untouchability ?

INTERPRETATION AND PRINCIPLE USED

According to the above facts, we observe that even though the defendant has
been practicing the cultural and religious belief inherited from his ancestors, it is against the
belief of the society and also unconstitutional. The cultural belief may someway hurt others
feeling and thus keeping this in mind Article 17 of the Indian Constitution was made and also
keeping in mind that not all religious practice which are followed from the ancient time need
not necessarily be correct, for example Sati. Thus even though the defendant was practicing
his right to privacy and also did not break any law, his way of behaviour falls under the
category of Untouchability under Article 17 of Indian Constitution.
In the above problem we interpret RJ who is higher sub-caste of Brahmans and he
grew up in the environment where they followed untouchability and yet he did not say
anything which could hurt other’s feeling. He believed and practiced what his family has
been doing all these years. In his defence, he stated that Article 17 intended to abolish
untouchability in ‘public space’ and does not hit upon his kind of behaviour which are his
personal choice of lifestyle.
But if we deeply analyse Article 17, which states 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 law. The phrase ‘practice in
any form’ was added by the legislation purposefully and hence it can be said that what RJ
practiced was one way or the other was untouchability and it falls under the phrase ‘practise
in any form’ and hence the principle literal or grammatical interpretation is interpreted
here. This is why the legislature has intended to add the phrase and this is what I have
inferred from this case.
Literal or grammatical interpretation means that the words of an enactment are to be
given their ordinary and natural meaning, and if such meaning is clear and unambiguous,
effect should be given to a provision of a statute whatever may be the consequences. This
rule is the basis of all court decisions in relation to statues.

 Words and Phrases will have their general meaning in Statutes. If it is a technical statute,
they will have their technical meaning
 Phrases and sentences are constructed according to the rules of grammar.

5
CASE LAW

In the case of State Of Karnataka V Appa Balu Ingale3, the respondents were tried for
offences under sections 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and convicted and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 100 each. The
charge against the respondents was that they restrained the complainant party by show of
force from taking water from a newly dug-up bore well on the ground that they were
untouchables. The High Court acquitted them. The Supreme Court upheld conviction. The
Court held that the object of Article 17 and the Act is to liberate the Society from blind and
ritualistic belief which has lost all legal or normal base. It seeks to establish new ideas for
society- equality to dalits at par with general public, absence of disabilities, restrictions or
prohibitions on grounds of caste or religion.
Article 17 of the Constitution of India, in Part III, a Fundamental Right, made an epoch
making declaration that "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 law. In exercise of the power in second part of Article
17 and Article 35(a)(ii), the Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955 was made, which was
renamed in 1976 as " Protection of Civil Rights Act ", for short 'the Act'. Abolition of
untouchability in itself is complete and its effect is all pervading applicable to state actions as
well as acts of omission by individuals, institutions, juristic or body of persons.
In this case the court interpreted the principle literal rule stating that the case falls
under Article 17 and Article 35(a)(ii) of the constitution. The case went in favour of Dalits.
In Similar case Lalit Kishore & M.P Gupta V State of Madhya Pradesh 4 also the court
interpreted Article 17 in literal Sense.

ANALYSIS
In the above problem the principle literal rule will be applied even though RJ is not practising
untouchability in public. This rule is the basis for all court decisions in relation to statues.
Here Judge rely on the exact wordings of the statute for the case. They don’t interpret
meaning.
Main advantages of The Literal Rule:

1) No scope for the judges own opinions or prejudices to interfere.

2) Respects parliamentary supremacy and upholds separation of power.

3) Encourages drafting precision, promotes certainty and reduces litigation.

3
1995 Supp. (4) SCC. 469 (paras 1&11) :AIR 1993 SC. 1126
4
2003(3) BLJR 1751

6
One Example of The Literal Rule was the Fisher v Bell case (1960)5. Under the offensive
weapons act of 1959, it is an offence to offer certain offensive weapons for sale. Bristol
shopkeeper, James Bell displayed a flick knife in his shop window. When brought to trial it
was concluded that Bell could not be convicted given the literal meaning of the statute. The
law of contract states that having an item in a window is not an intention of sale but is an
invitation to treat. Given the literal meaning of this statute, Bell could not be convicted.
There are also disadvantages to The Literal Rule. For example, in the R v Maginnis case
(1987)6, the defendant was charged with possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply
under the misuse of drugs act 1971 (s.5). The defendant claimed that the drugs belonged to a
friend who was picking them up later. The judge stated that handing the drugs back was
supply. The case was upheld on appeal. In his speech at the appeal, Lord Keith proposed that:
“The word ‘supply’ in its ordinary natural meaning, conveys the idea of furnishing or
providing to another something which is wanted or required in order to meet the wants or
requirements of that other.” Lord Goff dissented saying: “I do not feel able to say that either
the delivery of goods by a depositor to a depositee, or the redelivery of goods by a depositee
to a depositor, can sensibly be described as an act of supplying goods to another.”

This case shows the main problem with The Literal Rule – that there can be disagreement
over the literal meaning of statutes. And also literal rule can create loopholes in law.

REFERENCES

1. http://www.iosjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.%2022%20Issue7/Version-
11/J2207117881.pdf
2. https://navsarjantrust.org/what-is-untouchability/
3. https://www.indiacelebrating.com/social-issues/untouchability-in-india/
4. http://www.simplydecoded.com/2015/04/03/article-17-constitution-of-india/
5. The Constitutional Law Of India by J.N Pandey
6. The Interpretation of Statutes by Prof. T. Bhattacharyya

5
(1961) 1 QB 394,(1960) 3 ALL ER 731
6
(1987) AC 303