The story so far:
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. Mr. Kharge said the ritual made him feel the “sting of untouchability” and sought legal action, while the organisation that performed it 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 regard as untouchability when the alleged wrong is not denial of entry, but the “purification” of a place after a Dalit person has used it?
What does the law prohibit?
Article 17 of the Constitution declares that “‘untouchability’ is abolished”, forbids its practice “in any form”, and says that enforcing any disability arising from untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. The Supreme Court has recognised that Article 17 is enforceable against non-State actors as well.
The Constitution does not define “untouchability”.
Parliament gave effect to Article 17 through the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, which was substantially amended and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 in 1976. The Act punishes the preaching and practice of untouchability and the enforcement of disabilities arising from it.
Some of its provisions address familiar forms of untouchability: preventing entry into a place of worship, imposing social disabilities, or discriminating in access to public facilities and services. But the law is not confined to physically keeping somebody out. Section 7(1)(d) also punishes a person who “insults or attempts to insult, on the ground of ‘untouchability’, a member of a Scheduled Caste”.
The law can reach conduct beyond denial of access, but the fact that an act affects or humiliates a Scheduled Caste person does not by itself answer whether Section 7(1)(d) is attracted. The provision requires the insult to be “on the ground of ‘untouchability’”.
How has the Supreme Court interpreted Article 17?
The Supreme Court addressed the scope of Article 17 in Sukanya Shantha v Union of India (2024), while striking down caste-discriminatory provisions in prison manuals and reviewing its earlier Article 17 jurisprudence.
The court described untouchability as connected to the caste system and its interconnected notions of “purity and pollution”. These ideas, it said, have been used to reinforce caste hierarchy and influence whom people associate with and how they treat one another. Article 17 rejects such notions.
The judgment also explains why the absence of a definition does not necessarily confine the scope of Article 17. It noted that even a broadly worded definition could become restrictive because discrimination can manifest itself through the “manifold complexities” of social life. Article 17 must therefore be capable of reaching untouchability in its different forms and manifestations.
The court then stated the principle directly: “There cannot be any stigma attached to the existence, touch or presence of any person.”
The court’s reasoning is therefore not confined to familiar forms of exclusion. It also addresses the underlying caste idea of pollution: discriminatory treatment based on a person’s touch or presence.
What has the court said 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 permitted to enter only after undergoing a process of purification.
Crucially, the High Court held that Dalit devotees could not be subjected to an additional condition for temple entry that did not apply to other devotees, and specifically directed that the reported purification practice be discontinued, holding it discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 17.
At Nathdwara, purification was imposed on Dalit devotees before they could enter a temple on equal terms. At Haldwani, the ritual occurred after Mr. Kharge had already used the venue, and the reason for it is disputed. The Surya Narayan Choudhary case therefore does not decide the present controversy; it establishes the narrower proposition that caste-specific ritual purification imposed on Dalits as a condition of equal access can violate Article 17.
Where is the legal boundary?
Article 17 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act must also be distinguished from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which creates separate criminal offences with their own ingredients.
Section 3(1)(r), for example, deals with intentionally insulting or intimidating an SC/ST member with intent to humiliate them in a place within public view, when committed by a person who is not an SC or ST. 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 connected to the victim belonging to the protected community. More 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 establish untouchability?
If evidence were to show that the venue was regarded as requiring cleansing because caste-based notions of pollution were attached to Mr. Kharge’s touch or presence, the reasoning in Sukanya Shantha case and the caste-specific purification considered in Surya Narayan Choudhary case would become directly relevant. If, on the other hand, the ritual was undertaken for reasons unconnected with caste, including the reasons cited by the organisers, its timing after Mr. Kharge’s rally would not by itself establish untouchability.
The word shuddhikaran cannot answer that question. The legal issue is the connection, if any, between the ritual and caste-based notions of pollution.
(Sahil Hussain Choudhury is an advocate and Constitutional law researcher from Assam)