Untouchability is defined neither in the Constitution nor by statute. Instead, it denotes a social practice that marginalises specific depressed classes based entirely on their birth, subjecting them to systemic discrimination. Historically, their physical touch was deemed polluting to others. Members of these designated untouchable castes were barred from drawing water from shared wells or utilizing public community tanks used by upper castes. Furthermore, they were excluded from entering temples and endured numerous other societal disabilities.

India has long confronted the oppressive practice of ‘Untouchability’ alongside enduring resistance against it. Well before independence, profound social movements emerged under the transformative leadership of Jyotirao Phule, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, and Mahatma Gandhi. Condemning the system, Gandhi famously remarked that “untouchability is a sin of Hinduism”.

When the proposal to abolish untouchability was introduced in the Constituent Assembly, it was passed unanimously amid historic applause, ultimately taking shape as Article 17. While driving this constitutional milestone, leaders like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar recognized that enshrining this abolition as a Fundamental Right and criminalizing its practice were critical legal pillars. However, they emphasized that legal boundaries must be reinforced by a structural and moral shift in society to truly eradicate the prejudice.

Article 17 of the Constitution of India abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. It states that “Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of “Untouchability” shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

This benchmark provision stands as a vital constitutional safeguard for promoting social equality and eradicating caste-based discrimination. By doing so, it firmly reinforces the core tenets of equality and justice within India’s democratic framework.

Under Article 35 of the Constitution of India, Parliament holds the exclusive power to enact legislation giving effect to Fundamental Rights under Part III. Exercising this authority, Parliament passed the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955. This legislation was later comprehensively amended in 1976 and renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, to introduce more stringent penalties.

  • Punishment under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 – A person practicing Untouchability shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months and also with fine which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees.

To prevent the commission of offences or atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Parliament also enacted the ‘Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.’ The Act provides for special courts for the trial of offences under the Act and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. The Act excludes the application of Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. (granting of anticipatory bail in case of anticipated accusation of non-bailable offences) to cases arising under the Act. Atrocities committed against a Hindu SC or ST, who had converted to another religion, can be prosecuted under the Act, if the victim is still suffering from social disability.

Important Case Laws

  1. Devarajiah v. B. Padmanna (1958) and Jai Singh v. Union of India (1977) - In both cases, the High Courts noted that the word “untouchability” is placed in inverted commas within Article 17. This punctuation indicates that the term cannot be interpreted in its literal or grammatical sense (such as touching an unclean person or temporary physical quarantine). The courts held that the definition must be drawn purely from its historical practice in India. It refers specifically to the social system that imposes disabilities, exclusions, and hardships on individuals purely by reason of their birth into certain depressed castes. Consequently, the judgments established that a purely private dispute, temporary social boycott, or expulsion from a religious institution does not fall under Article 17 unless it is explicitly driven by historical, birth-based caste discrimination.
  2. People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union of India (1982) – This case is also known as the Asiad Workers Case. Dictated by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, the ruling fundamentally transformed how Fundamental Rights are enforced against private actors and laid the bedrock for Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. The case arose when PUDR filed a PIL based on a report detailing the horrific exploitation of thousands of construction workers hired by private subcontractors for the 1982 Asian Games projects in Delhi. The workers were denied minimum wages, subjected to hazardous environments without safety equipment, and forced into bonded and child labour. While the case primarily focused on the right to livelihood under Article 21 and forced labour under Article 23, it holds a critically unique position regarding Article 17 (Untouchability). The Supreme Court established that certain fundamental rights, including Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability) and Article 23 (Prohibition of Forced Labour), are enforceable against private individuals, not just the State. The Court ruled that when a private individual violates a citizen’s rights guaranteed under Article 17, the State has a mandatory, positive constitutional duty to step in immediately and take legal action. Crucially, Justice Bhagwati declared that the State cannot excuse its inaction by arguing that the victim did not personally file a complaint. The state must proactively enforce the anti-untouchability legal architecture regardless of whether the marginalized or uneducated victim is capable of independently asserting their rights. Through PUDR, Article 17 transformed from a passive negative prohibition into an active operational directive forcing the State to police and eradicate private caste-based discrimination.
  3. State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (1993) – In this case, the court enforced the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and upheld the constitutional abolition of untouchability under Article 17 by restoring convictions against individuals who denied Dalits access to a public borewell. The Court established that social welfare legislation requires social sensitivity over rigid legal technicalities, emphasizing that minor contradictions in testimony from historically marginalized victims should not result in the acquittal of oppressors.
  4. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) - The petitioners argued that the customary ban restricting women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala temple was rooted in notions of menstrual impurity. They contended that excluding an entire class of citizens based on biological factors casts a social stigma analogous to historical untouchability. In his majority opinion, Justice Chandrachud broke away from traditional jurisprudence by holding that Article 17 prohibits untouchability “in any form.” He reasoned that the article was designed to dismantle the entire system of social exclusion driven by notions of purity and pollution. Consequently, he ruled that treating women as “polluted” or “impure” due to a biological status like menstruation is a form of social untouchability that violates Article 17. Conversely, the temple administration and the sole dissenting judge, Justice Indu Malhotra, strongly rejected this view. They argued that the historical intent of the Constituent Assembly was strictly to abolish caste-based discrimination against Dalits. They emphasized that the Sabarimala restriction was limited to a specific age band due to the celibate nature of the deity, meaning it lacked the structural caste malice required to invoke Article 17. This tension remains a flashpoint in Indian constitutional law. The ongoing multi-judge review proceedings continue to intensely debate whether extending Article 17 to encompass gender-based menstrual exclusion distorts its core historical purpose or rightfully fulfils its transformative mission.

Article 17, more or less, has succeeded in its objective - to liberate the society from a traditional practice which treated certain sections of the Hindu society as sub-humans. It leads to an egalitarian society.