Context: A ‘shuddhikaran’ (purification) ritual was performed at Haldwani’s Ramlila Ground on August 10, two days after Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge addressed a rally there.
- Kharge described it as reflecting the “sting of untouchability” and sought legal action, while the organisers attributed the ritual to reasons unrelated to caste.
- The controversy raises an important constitutional question: Can purification of a public place after its use by a Dalit person amount to untouchability?
Article 17: Constitutional Prohibition
- Article 17 abolishes untouchability, prohibits its practice “in any form”, and makes enforcement of disabilities arising from untouchability punishable by law.
- The Supreme Court has held that Article 17 can be enforced against private individuals as well as the State.
- The Constitution, however, does not define “untouchability”, allowing its scope to address changing manifestations of caste-based discrimination.
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
- Parliament enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, substantially amended and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1955 in 1976, to operationalise Article 17.
- It penalises the preaching/practice of untouchability and enforcement of disabilities arising from it, including denial of access to places of worship and public facilities.
- Section 7(1)(d) also penalises insulting or attempting to insult a Scheduled Caste (SC) person “on the ground of untouchability”.
- Therefore, merely humiliating or affecting an SC person is not automatically an offence under Section 7(1)(d); the conduct must have a connection with untouchability.
Supreme Court: ‘Purity and Pollution’
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024)
- The Supreme Court examined Article 17 while striking down caste-discriminatory provisions in prison manuals.
- It linked untouchability with caste-based notions of “purity and pollution”, which historically reinforce caste hierarchy by determining whom people can associate with and how they should be treated.
- Article 17 must therefore reject not only explicit exclusion but also discriminatory practices based on caste notions of pollution.
- The Court emphasised that no stigma can be attached to a person’s existence, touch or presence.
- Since caste discrimination can take diverse forms, the scope of Article 17 cannot be restricted to a narrow, predefined definition of untouchability.
Rajasthan High Court: Purification Practice
Surya Narayan Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan (1988)
- The case concerned Dalit devotees at the public Shrinathji Temple, Nathdwara, who were reportedly required to undergo purification before temple entry.
- The Rajasthan High Court held that Dalit devotees could not be subjected to an additional caste-specific condition that was not imposed on other devotees.
- It directed discontinuation of the purification practice, holding it discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 17.
- However, the case does not directly decide the Haldwani controversy, because at Nathdwara purification was a condition imposed on Dalits before equal access, whereas at Haldwani the ritual occurred after the venue had been used and its stated reason is disputed.
Untouchability vs. SC/ST Atrocities Act
- The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is a separate legal framework with distinct criminal offences and ingredients.
- Section 3(1)(r) covers intentional insult or intimidation of an SC/ST person, with intent to humiliate them, in a place within public view, when committed by a non-SC/ST person.
- In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the Supreme Court clarified that an insult does not attract this provision merely because the victim belongs to an SC/ST community; the insult must be connected to that identity.
- In Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2026), the Court reiterated that “public view” is an essential requirement for the offence under Section 3(1)(r).
What Would Determine the Haldwani Case?
- The decisive issue would be whether the purification ritual was performed because caste-based notions of pollution were attached to Kharge’s touch or presence.
- If such a caste connection is established, the reasoning in Sukanya Shantha and the caste-specific purification condemned in Surya Narayan Choudhary become relevant.
- If the ritual was genuinely undertaken for reasons unrelated to caste, its occurrence after Kharge’s rally would not, by itself, establish untouchability.
- Therefore, the word “shuddhikaran” alone is not legally determinative; evidence establishing the link between the ritual and caste-based notions of purity/pollution would be crucial.
