Untouchability and the idea of ”purity”
Story so far:
A shuddhikaran (purification) ritual was performed at Haldwani’s Ramlila on August 10, two days after Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge addressed a rally there. Mr Kharge said the ritual made him feel “a thorn in the side of untouchability” and sought legal action, while the organization that carried it out offered a different explanation, citing slogans allegedly raised during the rally and Mr Kharge’s earlier political remarks. The dispute raises a legal question beyond the immediate controversy: what does Indian law consider untouchability when the alleged wrong is not the denial of entry but the “cleansing” of a site after a Dalat person has used it?
What does the law prohibit?
Article 17 of the Constitution declares that “untouchability” is abolished, prohibits its operation “in any form” and says that the enforcement of any disability resulting from untouchability is an offense punishable by law. The Supreme Court recognized that Article 17 is also enforceable against non-state entities.
The Constitution does not define “untouchability”.
Parliament enacted Article 17 through the Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955, which was substantially amended in 1976 and renamed the Civil Rights Protection Act 1955. The Act punishes the preaching and practice of untouchability and the enforcement of disabilities arising therefrom.
Some of its provisions deal with well-known forms of untouchability: preventing entry to places of worship, imposing social disabilities or discrimination in access to public facilities and services. But the law is not limited to physically detaining someone outside. § 7 paragraph 1 letter (d) also punishes a person who “insults or attempts to offend on the ground of ‘untouchability'” a member of the caste.
The Act may reach an act beyond denial of access, but the fact that the act affects or humiliates a Scheduled Caste person does not in itself determine whether Section 7(1)(a) is attracted. d). The provision requires that the offense be “on the grounds of ‘untouchability'”.
How has the Supreme Court interpreted Article 17?
The Supreme Court considered the scope of Article 17 in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024), striking down caste discriminatory provisions in prison manuals and reviewing its earlier Article 17 jurisprudence.
The court identified untouchability as linked to the caste system and its interrelated concepts of “purity and pollution”. It is said that these ideas were used to reinforce the caste hierarchy and influence who people associate with and how they treat each other. Article 17 rejects such concepts.
The judgment also explains why the absence of a definition does not necessarily limit the scope of Article 17. It noted that even a broadly worded definition could become restrictive because discrimination can manifest itself through the “various complexities” of social life. Article 17 must therefore be able to achieve inviolability in its various forms and manifestations.
The court then directly stated the principle: “No stigma can be attached to the existence, touch or presence of any person.
The court’s reasoning is therefore not limited to known forms of exclusion. It also deals with the basic caste idea of pollution: discriminatory treatment based on a person’s touch or presence.
What did the court say about such practices?
In Surya Narayan Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan (1988), the Rajasthan High Court considered discrimination against Dalit devotees at the public Shrinathji temple in Nathdwara.
The court was told that Dalit devotees were allowed to enter only after undergoing a purification process.
Crucially, the Supreme Court ruled that Dalit devotees could not be subject to an additional condition for temple entry that did not apply to other devotees, and specifically ordered that the reported cleansing practice be stopped, finding it discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 17.
In Nathdwara, Dalit devotees were required to undergo purification before they could enter the temple on equal terms. In Haldwani, the ritual took place after Mr Kharge had already used the venue and the reason for this is disputed. Surya Narayan Choudhary’s case therefore does not decide the present dispute; introduces the narrower proposition that caste ritual purification imposed on Dalits as a condition of equal access may violate Article 17.
Where is the legal line?
Article 17 and the Civil Rights Act must also be distinguished from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which creates separate offenses with their own ingredients.
The provisions of § 3 paragraph 1 letter (r) for example, deals with intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of SC/ST with the intention of humiliating him in a publicly visible place, if committed by a non-SC or ST person. In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the Supreme Court said that not every insult to an SC/ST person attracts the provision: the insult or intimidation must be related to the victim belonging to a protected community. Recently, in Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2026), the Supreme Court reiterated that “public view” is an essential requirement for the offence.
What would prove untouchability?
If the evidence showed that the place was considered to require purification because caste-based notions of pollution were attached to Mr. Kharge’s touch or presence, the considerations in Sukanya Shantha’s case and the caste-specific purification considered in Surya Narayan Choudhary’s case would become directly relevant. On the other hand, if the ritual was carried out for non-caste reasons, including those cited by the organizers, its timing after Mr. Kharge’s rally would not in itself warrant untouchability.
The word shuddhikaran cannot answer this question. The legal issue is the connection, if any, between ritual and caste notions of pollution.
(Sahil Hussain Choudhury is an advocate and constitutional law researcher from Assam)
Published – 02 Sep 2026 08:30 IST