Legal guarantees and the persistence of untouchability
Quick dive
- Article 17 abolishes untouchability and its practice in any form is an offence; the interview argues that legal guarantees are necessary but not sufficient.
- The discussion distinguishes older exclusionary practices from newer atrocities linked to Dalit social mobility and challenges to purity-pollution norms.
- The interview stresses that criminal law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and that judges and institutions are also social actors shaped by prevailing norms.
- Suggested remedies extend beyond punishment to civil remedies, local dispute resolution, education, teacher training, inter-dining, inter-marriage and inclusive urban planning.
- exam_relevance: tests Article 17, the Protection of Civil Rights Act, the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) framework and the limits of criminal law; the article’s law-versus-social-conscience argument is a direct GS-I/GS-II mains theme, echoing UPSC’s recurring questions on constitutional morality and vulnerable groups.
Full explanation
This explanation is available with full current-affairs access.
Log in to continue