Statutory Implementation of Article 17

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. The text explicitly points to 'law' (statutes passed under Art 35) to fix penalties. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are coherent. Without a statutory/constitutional definition, the judiciary relies on historical understanding. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are contradictory. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 explicitly disqualifies anyone convicted of practicing untouchability from contesting parliamentary or state elections. The correct counterpart is electoral disqualification.

The Assertion is correct. Penalties are absent in the constitutional text. Reason (R1) is true and explains the assertion. Article 35 explicitly delegates penalty-setting to Parliament. Reason (R2) is factually false. The Constitution contains zero definitions of 'untouchable' or 'untouchability'. The correct counterpart is constitutional silence on definitions.

Statement 1 is incorrect. Candidate disqualifications are regularly governed by statutory acts like the RPA 1951. The correct counterpart is statutory electoral regulation. Statement 2 is correct. The RPA 1951 explicitly lists conviction for untouchability as a ground for electoral disqualification. Statement 3 is incorrect. The 1955 Act is fully constitutional and active.

Statement 1 is correct. This is the core textual declaration. Statement 2 is incorrect. The term is NOT defined in the Constitution. The correct counterpart is the absence of a constitutional definition. Statement 3 is incorrect. Punishments are prescribed by parliamentary acts (PCR Act 1955), not written in Part III. The correct counterpart is statutory prescription of penalties. Statement 4 is correct. Disqualification is mandated under the RPA 1951. Thus, exactly two statements are correct.