Which of the following statements regarding Article 17 of the Indian Constitution is correct?

It abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form, including enforcement of disabilities.

It provides a comprehensive definition of untouchability to ensure legal certainty.

It is enforceable only against State actors and government institutions.

It was introduced through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act.

The Supreme Court judgment in 'Sukanya Shantha v Union of India (2024)' primarily addressed which of the following?

Caste-discriminatory provisions in prison manuals and the broader interpretation of Article 17.

The regulation of religious rituals in private temples.

The constitutional validity of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The reservation policy for Scheduled Castes in private educational institutions.

Daily

250 words

8/10
Rating

2 September 2026

Untouchability and purification rituals in Haldwani

The topic involves a direct application of Article 17 and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding caste-based discrimination and purification rituals, which are core themes for GS1 social empowerment and GS2 constitutional law questions.

Notes

Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes 'untouchability' and forbids its practice in any form, making the enforcement of any disability arising from it an offence.
The Supreme Court has affirmed that Article 17 is enforceable against non-State actors.
The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (originally the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955) provides the legislative framework to punish the practice of untouchability and the enforcement of associated disabilities.
Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act punishes insults to a member of a Scheduled Caste on the ground of 'untouchability'.
In Sukanya Shantha v Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court held that untouchability is linked to caste-based notions of 'purity and pollution' and declared that no stigma can be attached to the existence, touch, or presence of any person.
The judiciary has clarified that 'untouchability' is not defined in the Constitution to ensure the law remains flexible enough to address the 'manifold complexities' of social discrimination.
The Surya Narayan Choudhary v State of Rajasthan (1988) case established that imposing caste-specific purification rituals as a condition for access to public places is discriminatory and violates Articles 14, 15, and 17.
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, provides a separate legal framework for addressing intentional insults or humiliation of SC/ST members, requiring proof of intent and, in some cases, occurrence in 'public view'.

Part of a longer story

This is day 3 of 4 in Haldwani purification ritual controversy, which has been running since 14 August 2026. Reading it whole is usually worth more than reading today alone — the exam asks how something developed.

Questions

Discuss the constitutional and legal framework governing the prohibition of untouchability in India. How has the judiciary expanded the scope of Article 17 to address contemporary manifestations of social exclusion? 150 words

Attempt this — 150 words in 8 min

0 / 150 words 8:00
The concept of 'purity and pollution' remains a significant challenge to the constitutional mandate of equality. Critically analyze how judicial interpretations of Article 17 and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, seek to dismantle caste-based discriminatory practices in public spaces. 250 words

Attempt this — 250 words in 11 min

0 / 250 words 11:00

Prelims

Which of the following statements regarding Article 17 of the Indian Constitution is correct?

The Supreme Court judgment in 'Sukanya Shantha v Union of India (2024)' primarily addressed which of the following?

Syllabus

Topics

Sources

Untouchability and the idea of ‘purity’

250words.in · https://250words.in/daily/2026-09-02/untouchability-and-purification-rituals-in-haldwani