Is 'purifying' a venue after a Dalit leader's rally untouchability under Article 17?
No one was stopped and no one was touched. Can a ritual of 'cleansing' still be untouchability in law?
Published 2 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
The Hindu's Text & Context page on 2 September 2026 examined the legal questions raised by a "shuddhikaran" (purification) ritual at the Ramlila ground in Haldwani, Uttarakhand. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge addressed a rally there on 8 August 2026. Two days later, on 10 August, members of the Shri Ram Sena performed the ritual there. Mr. Kharge and other Congress leaders called it untouchability and sought action under the law; Rahul Gandhi called it "another name for untouchability". The organisers said the ritual was a response to slogans raised at the rally, not to Mr. Kharge's caste. Union Minister J.P. Nadda told the Rajya Sabha that action would be taken against the wrongdoers and that the BJP never approved of such activities.
Article 17 abolishes "untouchability", forbids its practice "in any form" and makes the enforcement of any disability arising out of it an offence punishable by law. Neither the Constitution nor the statutes define the word, leaving courts to give it content. Article 35 empowers Parliament to prescribe punishments. Parliament enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976. Its Section 7(1)(d) punishes anyone who "insults or attempts to insult, on the ground of untouchability, a member of a Scheduled Caste". The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 separately punishes, under Section 3(1)(r), intentional insult or intimidation of an SC or ST member in any place within public view; in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) the Supreme Court held that such an insult must be linked to caste.
The central legal question is intent. In Surya Narayan Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan (1988), the Rajasthan High Court held that purification demanded as a condition of temple entry violated Articles 14, 15 and 17; Haldwani differs because no one was denied entry and the ritual came after the event. In Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (3 October 2024), the Supreme Court struck down caste-based work rules in prison manuals and read Article 17 to reach caste-based ideas of purity and pollution, not only physical exclusion. On that reading, if evidence shows the ritual was meant to remove "pollution" left by a Dalit leader's presence, it could amount to untouchability whatever it is called; if it had no caste link, as the organisers claim, the offence would not be made out.
Prelims facts
- Article 17 abolishes untouchability, forbids its practice in any form and makes enforcing any disability arising from it an offence; the word is not defined.
- The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 was renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976; its Section 7(1)(d) punishes insulting an SC member on the ground of untouchability.
- Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 punishes intentional insult in public view; Hitesh Verma (2020) requires a caste link.
- In Sukanya Shantha (3 October 2024) the Supreme Court struck down caste-based work rules in prison manuals and read Article 17 to cover notions of purity and pollution.
- The Haldwani ritual took place on 10 August 2026, two days after Mallikarjun Kharge's rally at the Ramlila ground.
Quick recall
- What does Article 17 do?
- Abolishes untouchability, forbids its practice in any form and makes enforcing any disability arising from it an offence.
- Does the Constitution define 'untouchability'?
- No. Courts give the term meaning.
- Which Article lets Parliament prescribe punishment for Article 17 offences?
- Article 35.
- What was the Protection of Civil Rights Act first called?
- The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955; renamed in 1976.
- What does Section 7(1)(d) of the PCR Act punish?
- Insulting or attempting to insult a member of a Scheduled Caste on the ground of untouchability.
- What does Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act punish?
- Intentional insult or intimidation of an SC or ST member, with intent to humiliate, in any place within public view.
- Which 2024 case struck down caste-based work rules in prison manuals?
- Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (3 October 2024).
- When did the Mahad Satyagraha take place?
- 20 March 1927, at the Chavdar tank, Mahad.
Prelims practice question
Consider the following statements:
1. The Constitution of India defines 'untouchability' in Article 17.
2. Article 17 can be enforced against private individuals as well as the State.
3. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 was earlier called the Untouchability (Offences) Act.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
- 1 and 2 only
- 2 and 3 only
- 1 and 3 only
- 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only. Statement 1 is wrong: Article 17 does not define untouchability. Statement 2 is correct: the Supreme Court held in PUDR v. Union of India (1982) that Article 17 applies against private persons. Statement 3 is correct: the Act was renamed in 1976.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Caste, untouchability and the constitutional and legal safeguards for Scheduled Castes
- How to use this
Cite the Haldwani 'purification' ritual as a contested example of caste notions of purity and pollution surfacing in new forms in public life.
- On 10 August 2026, two days after Mallikarjun Kharge's rally at Haldwani's Ramlila ground, Shri Ram Sena members performed a 'shuddhikaran' ritual; Congress leaders called it untouchability.
- The organisers said it responded to slogans at the rally, not to Kharge's caste, so whether it was caste-based depends on intent and evidence.
- In Sukanya Shantha (3 October 2024) the Supreme Court read Article 17 to cover caste-based notions of purity and pollution, not only physical exclusion.
- How to use this
Use the Haldwani controversy and recent rulings to illustrate that caste still shapes public life and law.
- The Haldwani 'purification' after a Dalit leader's rally drew national debate; J.P. Nadda told the Rajya Sabha action would be taken against wrongdoers.
- In Sukanya Shantha (3 October 2024) the Supreme Court struck down caste-based work rules in prison manuals, showing caste practices persisting inside state institutions.
- How to use this
Use Article 17 and its enforcing laws to show that strong legal safeguards exist but their application depends on intent and proof, limiting their reach.
- Article 17 abolishes untouchability 'in any form' but the term is undefined; the Protection of Civil Rights Act (renamed 1976) punishes insult 'on the ground of untouchability' under Section 7(1)(d).
- Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 punishes intentional insult in public view, but Hitesh Verma (2020) requires a caste link.
- Enforcement gaps need prompt registration and investigation of complaints, awareness drives and stronger social welfare machinery under the PCR Act.
Mains practice question
Article 17 abolishes untouchability 'in any form', but the Constitution does not define it. Discuss how laws and courts have given it meaning, with reference to recent controversies over 'purification' rituals. (250 words)
Model answer
Article 17 abolishes "untouchability" and forbids its practice "in any form", but neither the Constitution nor the enforcing laws define the term. Courts and Parliament have filled the gap, a question revived by the August 2026 "purification" ritual at Haldwani after a rally by Mallikarjun Kharge.
How laws give it meaning
- Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (renamed 1976): punishes religious and social disabilities; Section 7(1)(d) punishes insulting an SC member "on the ground of untouchability".
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Section 3(1)(r) punishes intentional insult in public view; special courts; Section 18A (2018) bars anticipatory bail.
- Article 35: only Parliament can prescribe punishment.
How courts give it meaning
- PUDR v. Union of India (1982): Article 17 binds private individuals too.
- Surya Narayan Choudhary (1988), Rajasthan High Court: purification as a condition of temple entry violates Articles 14, 15 and 17.
- Hitesh Verma (2020): an insult must be linked to caste to be an atrocity.
- Sukanya Shantha (2024): caste-based work rules in prison manuals struck down; untouchability includes notions of purity and pollution.
Applying this to purification rituals
- Words like "purification" are not decisive; intent is.
- If the ritual aims to remove "pollution" from a Dalit's presence, it falls within "any form".
- If unrelated to caste, criminal liability is hard to establish.
Way forward
- Prompt registration and investigation of complaints.
- Awareness drives, and stronger social welfare machinery under the PCR Act.
Untouchability survives by changing form; Article 17 was written broadly so that the law can follow it.
The basics
Why this matters
In August 2026 a "purification" ritual was performed at a public ground in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, two days after Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, a Dalit leader, held a rally there. Nobody was barred and nobody was touched. The Hindu's Text & Context page asked whether such a ritual can still be untouchability in law. The answer turns on how courts read Article 17, a question that suits both GS1 (caste and society) and GS2 (rights and laws for vulnerable sections).
What the Constitution says
Article 17 abolishes "untouchability", forbids its practice "in any form", and makes the enforcement of any disability arising out of it an offence punishable by law. It does not define the word. Article 35 gives Parliament, not the States, the power to make laws punishing such offences.
- 1927Mahad Satyagraha: caste Hindus 'purify' the Chavdar tank after Dalits drink from it
- 1950Article 17 abolishes untouchability
- 1955Untouchability (Offences) Act enacted
- 1976It is renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act and strengthened
- 1989SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act enacted
- 2024Sukanya Shantha: caste-based work rules in prison manuals struck down
- 2026Haldwani 'purification' ritual on 10 August
Two laws that could apply
Parliament has passed two main laws. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 punishes the practice of untouchability. The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 punishes a wider list of atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
- Punishes practising or preaching untouchability
- Section 7(1)(d): insulting an SC member 'on the ground of untouchability'
- One to six months' jail and a fine of ₹100 to ₹500
- Punishes atrocities against SCs and STs
- Section 3(1)(r): intentional insult or intimidation in public view
- Insult must be linked to caste (Hitesh Verma, 2020)
What a court would ask
Words like "purification" do not settle the matter. What counts is the reason behind the act.
- 1ActWas there an act that humiliated, excluded or stigmatised a person?
- 2Caste linkWas it based on the idea that a Dalit person's presence pollutes?
- 3Public viewFor the Atrocities Act, did the insult happen in a place within public view?
- 4Fit the lawDoes it fall under Section 7(1)(d) of the PCR Act, Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act, or neither?
The echo of history is strong. In 1927 caste Hindus performed a 'purification' of a public tank after Dalits led by B.R. Ambedkar drank from it, as the Mahad Satyagraha, 1927 page explains.
Go deeper
In one line: A "shuddhikaran" (purification) ritual at a Haldwani ground after Mallikarjun Kharge's rally raised the question of whether a ritual of cleansing, with no denial of entry, can amount to untouchability under Article 17.
Why it matters for UPSC
Article 17 and the two laws that enforce it are Prelims basics. Mains GS1 asks why caste persists in new forms, and GS2 asks about laws and institutions for vulnerable sections.
The core idea
Article 17 bans untouchability in any form but does not define it. Parliament enforces it through the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Courts have read untouchability to include caste-based ideas of purity and pollution, not only physical exclusion. So the legal question at Haldwani is intent: was the ritual meant to remove "pollution" from a Dalit leader's presence? The Mahad Satyagraha, 1927 shows that such rituals have a long history.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 8 August 2026: Kharge's rally at the Ramlila ground, Haldwani
- 10 August 2026: the purification ritual by members of the Shri Ram Sena
- 1955: Untouchability (Offences) Act; renamed Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976
- Section 7(1)(d), PCR Act: insulting an SC member on the ground of untouchability
- Section 3(1)(r), Atrocities Act, 1989: intentional insult in public view
- 3 October 2024: Sukanya Shantha judgment on caste in prison manuals
Where to go next
- Article 17: what the Constitution abolished and how far it reaches
- Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: the law that punishes the practice of untouchability
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: the stronger law against insult and violence aimed at SCs and STs
- Mahad Satyagraha, 1927: the historical mirror: a tank 'purified' after Dalits drank from it
Go deeper: can a ritual be a crime?
The case that it is untouchability. Congress leaders, including Mr. Kharge, called the ritual untouchability and asked for action under the law; Rahul Gandhi called it "another name for untouchability". The Supreme Court in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (3 October 2024) struck down prison manual rules that assigned work by caste and read Article 17 to reach caste-based ideas of purity and pollution, not only acts of physical exclusion. On that reading, a ritual meant to "cleanse" a place of a Dalit leader's presence could fall within Article 17 whatever it is called.
The case for caution. The organisers said the ritual was a response to slogans raised at the rally, not to Mr. Kharge's caste. Criminal law needs proof of intent. Under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, Section 7(1)(d) requires that the insult be "on the ground of untouchability". Under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) held that not every insult to a member of a Scheduled Caste is an offence; it must be linked to caste.
What earlier courts said. In Surya Narayan Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan (1988), the Rajasthan High Court held that purification demanded as a condition of temple entry violated Articles 14, 15 and 17. Haldwani is different because no one was denied entry and the ritual came after the event, which is why intent becomes the deciding factor.
The larger point. The Mahad Satyagraha, 1927 of 1927 ended with a tank being "purified" after Dalits drank from it. The persistence of such rituals nearly a century later is why Article 17 is written to cover untouchability "in any form".
Article 17
what the Constitution abolished and how far it reaches
In one line: Article 17 abolishes untouchability, forbids its practice in any form, and makes enforcing any disability arising from it a punishable offence.
What it does
It is one of the few Fundamental Rights that apply against private individuals as well as the State; the Supreme Court said so in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982). The word "untouchability" is placed in quotation marks and not defined, so courts read it as the caste-based practice, not its literal meaning. Article 35 gives Parliament the power to prescribe punishment.
Related provisions
Article 15(2) bars denying any citizen access to shops, public restaurants, wells, tanks and bathing ghats on grounds including caste. Article 46 directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Why it is in the news
The Haldwani ritual tests whether a cleansing ritual with no denial of entry can be untouchability "in any form".
Where to go next
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
the law that punishes the practice of untouchability
In one line: The Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1955 is the law Parliament made under Article 17 to punish the practice of untouchability.
History
It was enacted as the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act by an amendment in 1976, which came into effect on 19 November 1976. "Civil rights" means rights that accrue to a person because of the abolition of untouchability by Article 17.
Key offences
It punishes enforcing religious disabilities (such as barring entry to places of worship), social disabilities (such as denying access to shops or water sources) and, under Section 7(1)(d), insulting or attempting to insult a member of a Scheduled Caste "on the ground of untouchability". Preaching or justifying untouchability on historical, religious or other grounds is also an offence. Offences are cognisable, and the basic punishment is one to six months' imprisonment and a fine of ₹100 to ₹500.
Where to go next
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
the stronger law against insult and violence aimed at SCs and STs
In one line: The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 punishes a long list of crimes against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and sets up special courts to try them.
What it covers
Section 3 lists offences ranging from forced labour and land grabbing to humiliation. Section 3(1)(r) punishes intentionally insulting or intimidating, with intent to humiliate, a member of an SC or ST in any place within public view. Offences under Section 3(1) carry six months to five years' imprisonment and a fine. Special courts try these cases.
How courts read it
In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020) the Supreme Court held that an insult is an offence under the Act only if it is linked to the victim's caste and made in public view. After a 2018 Supreme Court ruling diluted arrest safeguards, Parliament added Section 18A in 2018 to restore the bar on anticipatory bail.
Where to go next
Mahad Satyagraha, 1927
the historical mirror: a tank 'purified' after Dalits drank from it
In one line: The Mahad Satyagraha of 1927 was B.R. Ambedkar's campaign to assert the right of Dalits to draw water from a public tank.
What happened
On 20 March 1927, Ambedkar led thousands of Dalits to drink water from the Chavdar tank at Mahad, in present-day Maharashtra, a public tank that had been declared open to all. Caste Hindus responded by "purifying" the tank with rituals, treating Dalit contact as pollution. Later that year, on 25 December 1927, a copy of the Manusmriti was burned at Mahad.
Why it matters
Mahad turned a demand for civic equality, access to public water, into a political movement against untouchability. Its core claim, that public spaces belong equally to all, later found place in Articles 15(2) and 17.
Why it is in the news
The Haldwani ritual of August 2026 raises the same question: whether a 'purification' treats the presence of a Dalit person as pollution.
Where to go next
Take the 2 September 2026 quiz: 36 Prelims-style questions with answers