Skip to main content

Article 23 of Discrimination

 Article 23 of Discrimination

Discrimination has been part of our Indian history. In earlier times this wasn't considered a crime instead it was seen as a social norm.

Discrimination is an intention or accomplished differential treatment of a person or social group for reasons of a certain generalized trait. Discrimination can be done on any basis, such as color, gender,  occupations, etc. Discrimination is often done by a majority group to minorities. International discrimination occurs at the level of the individual, institutional discrimination denotes explicit policies of a social institution that exclude, impede, or otherwise harm certain groups. 

Indian history has many cases of discrimination such as the caste system, caste is a rigid social group characterized by hereditary transmission of lifestyle, occupation, and social status. The caste consists of two different concepts of varna and jati. There are 4 types of caste, known as the Brahmins which consist of priests, scholars, and teachers, 2. The Kshatriyas consist of rulers, warriors, and administrators, 3. The vaishyas; cattle herders, agriculture, artisans, and merchants the last caste is known as the Shudras these are laborers and service providers. As seen the caste system was developed based on occupation. Based on these caste systems the concept of untouchability was developed. Untouchability is a system where people avoid touching a particular category of people. This is a way of treating people in a certain manner. eg; if the brahmins drank from the Shudras glass they had to take a bath after that, burn their clothes.  This was not only the case, they were not allowed to enter the religious place, they were allowed to clean up. 

After independence, things turned around and the Indian constitution added to article 23 as a fundamental right. Article 23 talks about the prohibition of untouchability on the ground of caste, religion, gender, etc.   This is the provision that establishes equality between the citizens.

Case Air Indian ETC. v. Nergesh Meerza & Ors, this case talks about the  AHS employed by one corporation or the other from the same class of the service as the AFPS and other members of the cabin crew. both the male pursers and the AHS are members of the same cabin crew, performing the same functions hence discrimination made between the members would be considered a violation of art 14 of the constitution.

 Case;  A.B  v. Rhinebeck central school district & Thomas Mawhinney, this case was regarding sexual harassment. It was filed by the high school principal. The plaintiff argued that the school violated state laws. The US court decision, to approve a consent decree that will require the district to develop and implement a comprehensive plan that will ensure a discrimination-free education environment for all the students. The court also suggested that the school should have taught sexual harassment training for the information.

 These are a few cases of discrimination, though this article discusses Indian discrimination there are many cases internationally as well. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
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 status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more