What happened at Haldwani's Ramilla ground on August 10, two days after Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge addressed a rally there? Organisers performed a shuddhikaran - purification - ritual. Kharge said it made him feel "sting of untouchability" and sought legal action. The organisers offered a different explanation, citing slogans allegedly raised during rally and Kharge's earlier political remarks.
The dispute raises a legal question beyond immediate controversy: what does Indian law regard as untouchability when alleged wrong is not denial of entry, but "purification" of a place after a Dalit person has used it?
What does law prohibit?
Article 17 declares "untouchability" is abolished, forbids its practice "in any form", and says enforcing any disability arising from untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. 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 Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, substantially amended and renamed Protection of Civil Rights Act in 1976. Act punishes preaching and practice of untouchability and enforcement of disabilities arising from it. Some provisions address forms of untouchability: preventing entry into place of worship, imposing social disabilities, discriminating in access to public facilities. But law does not exhaustively list what constitutes untouchability.
Section 7(d) also punishes a person who "insults" or attempts to insult, on the ground of "untouchability", a member of Scheduled Caste. Law can reach conduct beyond denial of access, that an act affects or humiliates a Scheduled Caste person does not by itself answer whether Section 7(d) is attracted. Provision requires insult to be "on the ground of untouchability".
How has Supreme Court interpreted Article 17?
In Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India (2024), while striking down caste-discriminatory provisions in prison manuals, Court described untouchability as connected to 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.
Judgment also explains why absence of a definition does not necessarily confine scope of Article 17. It noted that even a broadly worded definition may prove insufficient because discrimination can manifest itself through "manifold complexities" of social life. Article 17 must therefore be capable of reaching untouchability in its different forms.
What has court said about purification practices?
In Surya Narayan Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan (1988), Rajasthan High Court considered discrimination against Dalit devotees at public Shrinathji temple. Court was told Dalit devotees were permitted to enter only after undergoing a process of purification. 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 reported purification practice be discontinued, holding it discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 17. What made purification unlawful was it was imposed on Dalit devotees before they could enter on equal terms.
At Haldwani, ritual occurred after Kharge had already used venue, and reason for it is disputed.
Where is legal boundary?
Article 17 and Protection of Civil Rights Act must be distinguished from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which creates separate criminal offences with own ingredients. Section 3(1)(r) deals with intentionally insulting or intimidating SC/ST member with intent to humiliate them in a place within public view, committed by a person who is not SC or ST. In Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020), Supreme Court said not every insult to an SC/ST person attracts provision; insult or intimidation must be connected to victim belonging to protected community. More recently, in Gurjan, Girja Kumari vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2026), Supreme Court reiterated that "public view" is an essential requirement for offence.
What would establish untouchability?
If evidence were to show venue was regarded as requiring cleansing because caste-based notions of pollution were attached to Kharge's touch or presence, reasoning in Sukanya Shantha case and case-specific purification considered in Surya Narayan Choudhary would become directly relevant. If ritual was undertaken for reasons unconnected with caste, including reasons cited by organisers, its timing after Kharge's rally would not by itself establish untouchability. Word "shuddhikaran" cannot answer that question. Legal issue is the connection, if any, between ritual and caste-based notions of pollution.