Why in news?

A "shuddhikaran" (purification) ritual performed at Haldwani's Ramlila ground — two days after senior political leader addressed a rally there — has triggered a controversy over whether the act amounts to "untouchability" under law.

The episode raises a deeper constitutional question: does law recognise untouchability even when there is no denial of entry, but a "purification" of a place after a Dalit person has used it?

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What the Constitution and Law Prohibit?
• Supreme Court's Interpretation: Sukanya Shantha v Union of India (2024)
• Rajasthan High Court Precedent: Surya Narayan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan (1988)
• What Would Establish Untouchability in the Haldwani Case?

What the Constitution and Law Prohibit?

• Article 17 declares "untouchability" abolished, forbids its practice "in any form," and makes enforcement of any disability arising from it a punishable offence. The Constitution does not define "untouchability".
• The Supreme Court has held Article 17 is enforceable against non-State actors as well.
• Parliament operationalised Article 17 through the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 after a 1976 amendment.
• The Act penalises preaching and practice of untouchability, and enforcement of disabilities — covering denial of temple entry, social disabilities and discrimination in public facilities.
• Section 7(1)(d) specifically punishes insulting a Scheduled Caste member "on the ground of untouchability" — but the insult must be connected to untouchability, not merely humiliating.

Supreme Court's Interpretation: Sukanya Shantha v Union of India (2024)

• Case involved striking down caste-discriminatory provisions in prison manuals.
• Court linked untouchability to the caste system's notions of "purity and pollution", used historically to reinforce caste hierarchy.
• It held that the absence of a constitutional definition does not restrict Article 17's scope, since discrimination manifests through "manifold complexities" of social life.
• Key principle laid down was: "There cannot be any stigma attached to the existence, touch or presence of any person."
• This extends Article 17 beyond physical exclusion to discriminatory treatment based on touch or presence.

Rajasthan High Court Precedent: Surya Narayan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan (1988)

• The case was concerned with discrimination against Dalit devotees at the Shrinathji temple, Nathdwara.
• Dalits were permitted temple entry only after a purification process.
• High Court held this was an additional discriminatory condition not applied to other devotees.
• It directed the practice be discontinued, holding it violative of Articles 14, 15 and 17.
• Key distinction from Haldwani: At Nathdwara, purification was a precondition for entry; at Haldwani, the ritual occurred after use of the venue, and its cause is disputed.
• Hence, this precedent doesn't directly decide the Haldwani case, but establishes that caste-specific ritual purification as a condition of access violates Article 17.

Distinguishing from the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

• Article 17/PCR (Protection of Civil Rights Act) Act must be distinguished from the separate criminal regime under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
• Section 3(1)(r): Punishes intentional insult/intimidation of an SC/ST member with intent to humiliate, in a place within public view, by a non-SC/ST person.
• Hitesh Verma v State of Uttarakhand (2020): Not every insult to an SC/ST person attracts this provision — the insult must be connected to the person's caste identity.
• Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v State (NCT of Delhi) (2026): Reiterated that "public view" is an essential ingredient for the offence.

What Would Establish Untouchability in the Haldwani Case?

• The determining factor is evidence of a caste-based connection — whether the venue was seen as needing cleansing because of caste-based notions of pollution attached to Kharge's touch or presence.
• If such a connection exists, the reasoning in Sukanya Shantha and Surya Narayan Choudhary becomes directly relevant.
• If the ritual was for reasons unconnected to caste, mere timing after the rally does not by itself establish untouchability.
• The word "shuddhikaran" alone cannot answer this question — the legal test is the underlying connection to caste-based pollution, not the label or timing of the act.

Conclusion

Article 17's abolition of untouchability extends beyond physical exclusion to caste-based notions of purity and pollution attached to a person's touch or presence, as clarified in Sukanya Shantha.

Whether a specific act — such as the Haldwani ritual — constitutes untouchability ultimately turns on demonstrable caste-based intent, not on ritual terminology or coincidental timing.