{"id":122359,"date":"2026-09-02T11:08:18","date_gmt":"2026-09-02T05:38:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=122359"},"modified":"2026-09-02T11:08:18","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T05:38:18","slug":"untouchability-and-purity-constitutional-and-legal-framework-in-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/untouchability-and-purity-constitutional-and-legal-framework-in-india\/","title":{"rendered":"Untouchability and Purity: Constitutional and Legal Framework in India"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><b>Untouchability and Purity Latest News<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A &#8220;shuddhikaran&#8221; (purification) ritual performed at Haldwani&#8217;s Ramlila ground \u2014 two days after a senior political leader addressed a rally there \u2014 has triggered a controversy over whether the act amounts to &#8220;untouchability&#8221; under law.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The episode raises a deeper constitutional question: does law recognise untouchability even when there is no denial of entry, but a &#8220;purification&#8221; of a place after a Dalit person has used it?<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>What the Constitution and Law Prohibit<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><a href=\"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/article-17-of-indian-constitution\/\" target=\"_blank\"><b>Article 17<\/b><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> declares &#8220;untouchability&#8221; abolished, forbids its practice &#8220;in any form,&#8221; and makes enforcement of any disability arising from it a punishable offence. The Constitution <\/span><b>does not define<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8220;untouchability&#8221;.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court has held Article 17 is enforceable against non-State actors as well.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Parliament operationalised Article 17 through the <\/span><b>Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, renamed the <\/span><b>Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> after a 1976 amendment.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Act penalises <\/span><b>preaching and practice<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> of untouchability, and enforcement of disabilities \u2014 covering denial of temple entry, social disabilities and discrimination in public facilities.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Section 7(1)(d)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> specifically punishes insulting a Scheduled Caste member &#8220;on the ground of untouchability&#8221; \u2014 but the insult must be connected to untouchability, not merely humiliating.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Supreme Court&#8217;s Interpretation: Sukanya Shantha v Union of India (2024)<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Case involved striking down caste-discriminatory provisions in prison manuals.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Court linked untouchability to the caste system&#8217;s notions of &#8220;purity and pollution&#8221;, used historically to reinforce caste hierarchy.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It held that the absence of a constitutional definition does not restrict Article 17&#8217;s scope, since discrimination manifests through &#8220;manifold complexities&#8221; of social life.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Key principle laid down was: &#8220;<\/span><b>There cannot be any stigma attached to the existence, touch or presence of any person.&#8221;<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This extends Article 17 beyond physical exclusion to <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">discriminatory treatment based on touch or presence<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Rajasthan High Court Precedent: Surya Narayan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan (1988)<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The case was concerned with discrimination against Dalit devotees at the Shrinathji temple, Nathdwara.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Dalits were permitted temple entry only after a purification process.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">High Court held this was an additional discriminatory condition not applied to other devotees.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It directed the practice be discontinued, holding it violative of Articles 14, 15 and 17.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Key distinction from Haldwani: At Nathdwara, <\/span><b>purification was a precondition for entry<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">; at Haldwani, the ritual occurred after use of the venue, and its cause is disputed.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hence, this precedent doesn&#8217;t directly decide the Haldwani case, but establishes that caste-specific ritual purification as a condition of access violates Article 17.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Distinguishing from the SC\/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">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.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Section 3(1)(r):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> 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.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Hitesh Verma v State of Uttarakhand (2020<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">): Not every insult to an SC\/ST person attracts this provision \u2014 the insult must be <\/span><b>connected to the person&#8217;s caste identity<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v State (NCT of Delhi) (2026)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Reiterated that &#8220;public view&#8221; is an essential ingredient for the offence.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>What Would Establish Untouchability in the Haldwani Case?<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The determining factor is <\/span><b>evidence of a caste-based connection<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 whether the venue was seen as needing cleansing because of caste-based notions of pollution attached to Kharge&#8217;s touch or presence.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If such a connection exists, the reasoning in Sukanya Shantha and Surya Narayan Choudhary becomes directly relevant.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If the ritual was for reasons unconnected to caste, mere timing after the rally does not by itself establish untouchability.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The word &#8220;shuddhikaran&#8221; alone cannot answer this question \u2014 the legal test is the underlying connection to caste-based pollution, not the label or timing of the act.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Conclusion<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Article 17&#8217;s abolition of untouchability extends beyond physical exclusion to caste-based notions of purity and pollution attached to a person&#8217;s touch or presence, as clarified in Sukanya Shantha.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether a specific act \u2014 such as the Haldwani ritual \u2014 constitutes untouchability ultimately turns on demonstrable caste-based intent, not on ritual terminology or coincidental timing.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Source:<\/b> <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/op-ed\/a-new-form-of-untouchability\/article38389246.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">TH<\/a> | <a href=\"https:\/\/www.epw.in\/engage\/discussion\/untouchability-discussion-beyond-purity-pollution\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">EPW<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Untouchability and Purity are examined through Article 17, court rulings and legal safeguards. Learn how caste-based pollution and discriminatory practices are assessed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":122383,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[60,9950,22,59],"class_list":["post-122359","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","tag-mains-articles","tag-untouchability-and-purity","tag-upsc-current-affairs","tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs","no-featured-image-padding"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122359","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=122359"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122359\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":122374,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122359\/revisions\/122374"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/122383"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122359"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122359"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122359"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}