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.