Enforcement of Article 17

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are contradictory. The term is NOT defined in the Act either; it has been interpreted by the courts in its historical context. The correct counterpart is that neither document defines the term. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are coherent. Non-self-executory rights require acts like the PCR Act to function. Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are coherent. Article 17 binds private citizens, and the State has an obligation to enforce it against them.

The Assertion is correct. Private actors are bound by Article 17. Reason (R1) is true and correctly explains the assertion. The State is constitutionally obligated to stop private individuals from violating this right. Reason (R2) is factually false. The Constitution does NOT define untouchability anywhere, nor is it merely economic exploitation. The correct counterpart is the lack of a constitutional definition.

Statement 1 is incorrect. The lack of a textual definition does not render the Article void; courts interpret it based on historical practice. The correct counterpart is that judicial interpretation fills the definitional gap. Statement 2 is correct. The PCR Act (1955) was specifically enacted to enforce the prohibition, and it explicitly applies to private individuals. Statement 3 is incorrect. Article 17 is horizontally applicable against private citizens.

Statement 1 is incorrect. The Constitution does NOT define untouchability. The correct counterpart is the deliberate absence of a definition. Statement 2 is correct. The 1955 Act (formerly the Untouchability Offences Act) provides the penal teeth. Statement 3 is correct. It is a horizontal right. Statement 4 is correct. The State must actively ensure private actors do not violate it.