Untouchability and the Constitutional Rejection of ‘Purity and
Pollution’
Prelims:
Indian Polity
Mains:
GS Paper I:
Indian Society – social empowerment, GS Paper II: Indian Polity
Current relevance:
A
shuddhikaran (purification) ritual at Haldwani’s Ramlila ground has
sparked a debate over whether caste-based purification linked to an
individual’s touch or presence amounts to the practice of untouchability.
Highlights:
1.
Constitutional &
Legal Framework:
i.
Article
17 abolishes “untouchability”,
prohibits its practice “in any form”, and makes enforcement of
disabilities arising from it punishable by law.
ii.
The
Constitution does not define “untouchability”.
iii.
The
Supreme Court has recognised that Article 17 is enforceable against
non-State actors.
iv.
Parliament
enacted the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, which was substantially
amended and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 in 1976.
v.
Section
7(1)(d) punishes
insulting or attempting to insult a Scheduled Caste member “on the ground of
untouchability.”
2.
Supreme Court on
‘Purity and Pollution’:
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India (2024)
i.
The
Supreme Court connected untouchability with the caste system and notions of “purity
and pollution”.
ii.
Such
notions have historically reinforced caste hierarchy and discriminatory
social relations.
iii.
The
Court observed that discrimination can appear through the multiple
complexities of social life, making an excessively narrow definition
inappropriate.
iv.
Article
17 must therefore address different forms and manifestations of
untouchability.
v.
The
Court emphasised that no stigma can be attached to the existence, touch or
presence of any person.
3.
Ritual Purification
& Judicial Precedent:
Surya Narayan Choudhary v. State of
Rajasthan (1988)
i.
The
Rajasthan High Court examined discrimination against Dalit devotees at the
Shrinathji temple, Nathdwara.
ii.
Dalit
devotees were reportedly permitted entry only after undergoing purification.
iii.
The
Court held that Dalits could not be subjected to an additional condition for
temple entry that did not apply to other devotees.
iv.
It
directed discontinuation of the purification practice as discriminatory and
violative of Articles 14, 15 and 17.
4.
Untouchability vs.
Offences under SC/ST Act:
Article 17 and the Protection of
Civil Rights Act, 1955 must be distinguished from offences created
separately under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
i.
Section
3(1)(r) concerns
intentional insult or intimidation of an SC/ST member with intent to
humiliate in a place within public view, when committed by a non-SC/ST
person.
ii.
In Hitesh
Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the Supreme Court clarified that not
every insult against an SC/ST person constitutes an offence; it must be
connected to the victim's membership of the protected community.
iii.
In Gunjan
@ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2026), the Court reiterated
that “public view” is an essential ingredient of the offence.
5.
Legal Test for Untouchability:
i.
The
mere performance or timing of a shuddhikaran ritual does not, by
itself, establish untouchability.
ii.
The
key legal test is whether the ritual was based on a caste-linked belief that
a person’s touch or presence caused pollution.
iii.
If
the purification was performed because of such caste-based notions of
pollution, the principles laid down in Sukanya Shantha and Surya
Narayan Choudhary become relevant.
iv.
If
the ritual was conducted for reasons unrelated to caste, its occurrence
after a person’s presence alone would not amount to untouchability.
v.
Therefore,
the purpose, circumstances and connection with caste-based notions of
pollution are crucial in determining whether the ritual constitutes
untouchability.
Source: THE HINDU- https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/untouchability-and-the-idea-of-purity/article71415040.ece