Untouchability and Purity
A “shuddhikaran” or purification ritual performed at Haldwani’s Ramlila ground, two days after a senior political leader addressed a rally there, has triggered a legal and constitutional debate over whether such an act can amount to “untouchability”.
The controversy raises an important question: can untouchability exist even without physically denying entry to a Dalit person, if a place is allegedly “purified” after that person’s presence? The answer depends on whether the ritual can be linked to caste-based notions of purity and pollution.
What Does Article 17 of the Constitution Prohibit?
Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice “in any form.” It also makes the enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability punishable by law.
The Constitution does not define the term “untouchability”, allowing courts to interpret it in light of changing social realities.
Importantly, Article 17 is not confined only to actions by the State. The Supreme Court has recognised that it can also operate against private individuals and non-State actors when caste-based exclusion or discrimination is involved.
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
Parliament gave effect to Article 17 through the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, which was later renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 after amendments in 1976.
The Act criminalises:
- Practice and preaching of untouchability.
- Denial of access to public places and religious institutions.
- Social disabilities imposed on the basis of untouchability.
- Discriminatory treatment in public facilities.
Section 7(1)(d)
This provision punishes insulting a Scheduled Caste person “on the ground of untouchability.”
However, mere insult or humiliation is not sufficient. The act must have a clear connection with caste-based untouchability.
Supreme Court’s Interpretation in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024)
In Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, the Supreme Court examined caste-discriminatory provisions in prison manuals.
The Court linked untouchability with historical ideas of “purity and pollution” that reinforced caste hierarchy.
It clarified that the absence of a constitutional definition does not narrow Article 17 because caste discrimination can take many forms in social life.
A significant principle emerging from the judgment was that no stigma can be attached to the touch, presence or existence of a person.
This interpretation is important because it extends Article 17 beyond simple denial of access to treatment based on caste-linked notions of pollution.
Rajasthan High Court: Surya Narayan Choudhary Case
In Surya Narayan Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan (1988), the Rajasthan High Court dealt with discrimination against Dalit devotees at the Shrinathji Temple in Nathdwara.
Dalit devotees were allowed entry only after a purification process.
The Court held that imposing an additional purification requirement on Dalits amounted to discriminatory treatment and violated:
- Article 14
- Article 15
- Article 17
The Court therefore directed that the practice be stopped.
However, there is an important distinction from the Haldwani episode. In Nathdwara, purification was directly linked to Dalit access, while in Haldwani the ritual occurred after the event and its motive remains disputed.
Difference from the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
The protections under Article 17 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act must be distinguished from the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Section 3(1)(r)
It punishes intentional insult or intimidation of an SC/ST person with intent to humiliate in a place within public view, when committed by a person who is not an SC/ST member.
In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the Supreme Court held that every insult involving an SC/ST person does not automatically attract the Act. The humiliation must be linked to the victim’s caste identity.
Similarly, in Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2026), the requirement of “public view” was reiterated as an essential ingredient.
What Would Establish Untouchability in the Haldwani Case?
If investigators establish that the ritual arose from the idea that the place had become “polluted” because of a Dalit person’s presence, the reasoning in Sukanya Shantha and Surya Narayan Choudhary could become relevant.
However, if the ritual was performed for reasons unrelated to caste, the fact that it occurred after the rally would not by itself establish untouchability.
Therefore, the legal test is not simply the use of the word “shuddhikaran”, but the existence of a demonstrable caste-based purity-pollution connection.
Constitutional Significance
The controversy highlights the wider scope of Article 17 in modern constitutional law.
Untouchability is not limited to:
- Physical exclusion.
- Refusal of entry.
- Separate access arrangements.
It can also include symbolic or social practices that treat the presence or touch of a person as polluting solely because of caste.
At the same time, criminal liability requires clear evidence connecting the conduct with caste discrimination.
Conclusion
The Haldwani “shuddhikaran” controversy illustrates how the constitutional prohibition on untouchability extends beyond traditional forms of physical segregation.
Supreme Court jurisprudence makes clear that caste-based notions of purity and pollution attached to a person’s touch or presence can fall within the scope of Article 17. However, whether the specific Haldwani ritual constitutes untouchability depends on evidence establishing a caste-based motive.
Thus, the legal issue turns not on the ritual’s name or timing alone, but on whether it was rooted in a discriminatory belief that a Dalit person’s presence required purification.
Untouchability and Purity-FAQs Answered
What does Article 17 of the Constitution prohibit?
Article 17 abolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice in any form. It also makes the enforcement of disabilities arising from untouchability punishable by law.
Can untouchability exist without denying entry to a person?
Yes. Practices based on caste-based notions of purity and pollution, including treating a person’s touch or presence as polluting, may fall within the scope of Article 17.
What is the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955?
It is the principal legislation giving effect to Article 17. It criminalises practices such as preaching untouchability, denying access to public places and imposing social disabilities based on untouchability.
What did the Supreme Court hold in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024)?
The Supreme Court linked untouchability with historical ideas of purity and pollution and emphasised that no stigma can be attached to the touch, presence or existence of a person on caste grounds.
What would determine whether the Haldwani purification ritual amounts to untouchability?
The key issue would be whether there is evidence that the ritual was performed because of the caste identity, touch or presence of a Dalit person. The ritual’s name or timing alone would not establish untouchability.
