Untouchability and Purity: Expanding the Scope of Article 17
Untouchability and Purity: Expanding the Scope of Article 17
Why in News?
A “shuddhikaran” (purification) ritual at Haldwani’s Ramlila ground, reportedly conducted after a senior political leader’s rally, has raised the constitutional question of whether caste-based purification of a public place can amount to untouchability even when there is no explicit denial of entry.
Constitutional & Legal Framework
|
Provision |
Significance |
|
Article 17 |
Abolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice “in any form”; enforceable against private individuals as well as the State |
|
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 |
Gives statutory effect to Article 17 and penalises practices enforcing disabilities arising from untouchability |
|
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 |
Separately criminalises specified caste-based insults, intimidation and atrocities |
What Does “Untouchability” Mean?
The Constitution does not define the term.
Historically, untouchability was rooted in caste-based notions of purity and pollution. The Supreme Court has recognised that Article 17 must address the diverse forms through which such discrimination manifests, rather than being restricted to literal physical exclusion.
|
Current Status and Recent Data (2024-2026) Despite legal bans, the practice persists in subtler forms, as evidenced by recent NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) data and government reports.
|
Supreme Court: Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024)
The Court struck down caste-discriminatory provisions in prison manuals and linked untouchability to the caste system's notions of purity and pollution.
A crucial principle was:
“There cannot be any stigma attached to the existence, touch or presence of any person.”
Thus, Article 17 can extend beyond denial of entry to discriminatory treatment attached to a person's caste-based touch or presence.
Relevant Rajasthan HC Precedent
· In Surya Narayan Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan (1988), Dalit devotees at the Shrinathji temple in Nathdwara were subjected to a purification process before entry.
· The Rajasthan High Court held that imposing a caste-specific purification requirement violated Articles 14, 15 and 17.
· However, there is an important distinction:
· Nathdwara: purification was imposed as a condition for entry.
· Haldwani: purification allegedly occurred after the person had used the public venue.
· Therefore, the Nathdwara judgment is relevant for its principle but does not automatically determine the Haldwani case.
Article 17 vs SC/ST Act
These legal provisions should not be conflated.
|
Article 17 / PCR Act |
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act |
|
Targets the practice of untouchability |
Targets specified atrocities against SC/ST persons |
|
Rooted in caste-based untouchability and disabilities |
Covers offences such as intentional caste-based insult/intimidation |
|
Focus is on the practice/disability arising from untouchability |
Specific statutory ingredients must be established |
|
Article 17 has wider constitutional significance |
Applies to offences specifically enumerated under the Act |
In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the Supreme Court clarified that not every insult to an SC/ST person automatically attracts the relevant provision; the insult must have a caste-related connection.
Legal Test in the Haldwani Case
· The crucial issue is not the word “shuddhikaran” or the timing alone, but whether the act was motivated by caste-based notions of purity and pollution.
· If caste-based pollution attached to the person’s touch/presence is established → Article 17 becomes directly relevant.
· If the ritual had no caste-based connection → timing alone would not establish untouchability.
