Skip to main content

Discrimination in India

 Discrimination in India 

Discrimination is an act which is done by a person to another person to treat different on the basis of their race, age, gender, caste, or disability etc. The discrimination in India is performed from ancient time and has longer history in India. From the ancient times there was certain discrimination is based on the cast in India like in constitution of India there is Article 17 which is prohibited the untouchability, and some other law like the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. 

The most major discrimination was performed from the medieval India is Untouchability, a particular group based on their work and caste they have to suffer discrimination among the society. There were a survey conducted by the India today which stated that about 27 percent of the Indian household still practice untouchability since Brahmin come on the top the caste chart, 52 percent of them practice untouchability. The most recent example of the discrimination which is indirectly related to it was a 5.43 percent of Indian marriage are inter cast it is just 5 percent which show the inter cast marriage are not allowed in India and rare also, family were not accept the boy/girl if he/she is a belonging to a particular cast. The personality who known for the fighting for the rights of the untouchables is Dr. B.R. Ambedkar they stated that ours is a battle not for wealth or for power. It is a battle for freedom. It is a battle for reclamation of Human personality. 

Article 17 of the Indian constitution prohibited the practice of untouchability in India, Article 35 read with Article 17 confer on the Parliament power to make laws prescribing punishment for practice untouchability. 

Article 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of constitution of India is related to discrimination, some of them are Equal remuneration ct, 1976 guarantees equal pay for equal work to men and women. Indian Penal Code, 1860 criminalizes the use of languages that promotes discrimination or violation against people on the basis of race, caste, sex, and place of birth, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other category.

Like mental health care Act 2017 prohibits the denial or refusal to access mental healthcare facilities or services for people on the basis of race, caste, place of birth, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability of any person. 

Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Act 1989 specially deal with all kind of discrimination and hate crime on basis of caste, Transgender Person Act 2019 specifically deal with all kind of discrimination and hate crime faced by people on the basis of their gender identity and gender expression. 

Rights of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is deal and prohibits discrimination and violence against people with physical and mental disability, Hindu succession Act 1956 specifically abolished the limited owner status of woman who owned property amended in 2004 to give daughter equal inheritance rights with sons.   

         

 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more