Polity & Governance
Untouchability in India: Article 17, PCR Act vs PoA Act and the Haldwani Row
By Shivam Singh, Founder & Mentor, Minimalist IAS
· Updated · 7 min read
WhatsApp Telegram
Untouchability was abolished by Article 17 of the Constitution in 1950, and practising it in any form is an offence; yet the ‘purification’ row at a Haldwani ground in August 2026 shows that law has removed the overt practice more easily than the prejudice. Article 17 binds private persons as well as the State, and only Parliament can prescribe its punishment (Article 35).
Why in news: After Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge addressed a rally at the Ramlila Ground in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, members of a right-wing group reportedly performed a ‘purification’ ritual at the venue. The Congress called it untouchability; BJP leaders and the group said the ground had been left littered and the ritual had nothing to do with his caste. A zero FIR was registered in Bengaluru and a case against unknown persons in Haldwani, and in September 2026 the Uttarakhand High Court disposed of a PIL after the State assured an impartial probe and preservation of evidence. Whether any offence was committed is for the investigation and the courts.
Updated (October 2026): Haldwani facts re-checked and the FIR and High Court steps added; the PCR Act and PoA Act are now compared side by side.
Key facts at a glance: what does Article 17 say?
To judge the Haldwani row, start with what the Constitution actually bans, and on whom the ban falls.
Article 17: abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice ‘in any form’; enforcing any disability arising from it is a punishable offence.
Not defined: neither the Constitution nor the PCR Act defines ‘untouchability’; courts read it in its historical, caste-based sense.
Horizontal reach: binds private persons, not just the State. Article 15(2) is the other such provision, on access to shops, wells and public places.
Article 35: only Parliament, not State legislatures, can prescribe punishment for offences under Part III such as Article 17.
Two enforcement laws: the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1955 punishes the practice; the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 punishes atrocities.
How did India build its legal shield against untouchability?
Article 17 only states the right; the laws that give it teeth came in steps over seven decades.
1950: Article 17 states the right; Article 35 leaves punishment to Parliament.
1955: the Untouchability (Offences) Act, the first penal law.
1976: renamed the PCR Act; stricter penalties and a duty on States.
1989: the PoA Act defines atrocities and sets up special courts.
2015 and 2018: exclusive special courts, and Section 18A on arrest and anticipatory bail (see the table below).
PCR Act or PoA Act: which law punishes what?
These two Acts grew out of that timeline, and the Haldwani complaints invoke both, which is why UPSC likes to set them side by side.
Concept | PCR Act, 1955 | PoA Act, 1989 |
|---|---|---|
What it punishes | The practice of untouchability: barring someone from a temple, well, shop, hospital or school | Atrocities and humiliation of SC/ST members, such as social boycott or forced degrading acts |
Who is protected | Anyone treated as untouchable | Members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes |
Who is the accused | Anyone | A person who is not an SC/ST member |
Punishment | Imprisonment of one to six months and a fine of ₹100 to ₹500 for core offences | Six months to five years for most Section 3(1) offences; heavier for graver ones |
Courts | Ordinary criminal courts | Special Courts, and Exclusive Special Courts after 2015 |
Anticipatory bail | No express bar | Barred by Sections 18 and 18A, unless no prima facie case is made out |
Think of it this way: the PCR Act is the law against the barrier at the temple gate; the PoA Act is the law against the assault or insult that follows. One incident can attract either, or both. For the wider caste framework, see our caste system in India guide.
What have the courts said?
The two Acts reach the courts through a few cases that UPSC-style questions return to.
State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (1992): the Supreme Court restored the conviction of men who stopped Dalits from drawing water from a new borewell (PCR Act Sections 4 and 7), stressing that Article 17 aims to end the practice itself.
Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (2018): the Court added safeguards against automatic arrest under the PoA Act; Parliament then inserted Section 18A in 2018 to restore the original position.
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020): upheld Section 18A, but held that the bar on anticipatory bail does not apply where the complaint makes out no prima facie case.
Why has law alone not been enough?
Courts punish what is done; Haldwani shows how much lies in attitudes no section can name.
Data: NCRB recorded 57,582 crimes against Scheduled Castes in 2022 and 57,789 in 2023 (+0.4%).
Overt vs hidden: bars on wells, temples and schools have declined since 1950, but untouchability survives as a social attitude and as backlash against Dalit social mobility.
Two traditions: Ambedkar sought legal abolition of untouchable practices; Gandhi stressed a change in social conscience. India needs both.
Beyond criminal law: experts suggest civil remedies (as in the POSH Act), mixed public spaces and textbook reform.
Why it matters for UPSC
That gap between law and attitude is exactly where the exam probes. GS Paper I (caste, social change) and GS Paper II (rights of vulnerable sections): Prelims tests the constitutional text; in Mains, use Haldwani to argue that law can abolish a practice but not a prejudice.
Prelims traps
State laws: State legislatures cannot punish untouchability; Article 35 gives that power to Parliament alone.
Definition: the Constitution does not define ‘untouchability’.
Whom it binds: Article 17 binds private persons, not only the State.
Two Acts: the PCR Act punishes the practice; the PoA Act punishes atrocities against SC/ST members.
Article 17 vs 15(2): both bind private persons; 15(2) covers access to shops, wells and public places.
Mentor’s note
Name the right Act. In Mains, say which Act fits which act: denial of temple entry is a PCR matter; a social boycott or forced degradation of an SC/ST member is a PoA matter.
Show the shift in 2018. Cite Mahajan (2018), Section 18A and Prathvi Raj Chauhan (2020) together; it shows the balance between liberty and protection.
Use Haldwani carefully. Present it as a reported incident under investigation, not a settled finding of untouchability.
Practice: Prelims MCQ
With reference to untouchability and the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:
The Constitution of India defines the term ‘untouchability’.
Only Parliament, and not a State Legislature, can make laws prescribing punishment for acts declared offences under Article 17.
Article 17 can be enforced against private individuals.
How many of the above statements are correct?
(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) All three
(d) None
Answer: (b) Only two
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: neither the Constitution nor the PCR Act defines the term; courts read it in its historical, caste-based sense.
Statement 2 is correct: Article 35 vests this power exclusively in Parliament.
Statement 3 is correct: Article 17 operates against private persons as well as the State.
Related PYQ (UPSC CSE Prelims 2020):
Which one of the following categories of Fundamental Rights incorporates protection against untouchability as a form of discrimination?
(a) Right against Exploitation
(b) Right to Freedom
(c) Right to Constitutional Remedies
(d) Right to Equality
Answer: (d) Right to Equality. Article 17 sits within Articles 14–18.
Use: this tests whether you know where Article 17 sits, not its detail.
See the detailed explanations: Prelims 2020 in the free PYQ vault, with year-wise analysis. Free to browse; free sign-up to download.
Practice: Mains question
Despite constitutional and legal safeguards, untouchability persists in new forms. Critically examine the reasons and suggest measures beyond criminal law. (Answer in 250 words; 15 Marks)
60-second revision
Q: Who can punish acts under Article 17? Only Parliament (Article 35).
Q: Is ‘untouchability’ defined? No; courts read it in its caste-based sense.
Q: PCR Act vs PoA Act in one line? PCR punishes the practice; PoA punishes atrocities against SC/ST members.
Q: What does Section 18A do? Bars anticipatory bail under the PoA Act, unless no prima facie case exists (Prathvi Raj Chauhan, 2020).
Q: Why was Haldwani in the news? A reported ‘purification’ of a rally venue after Kharge’s address, now under investigation.
Frequently asked questions (FAQs)
What is Article 17 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 17 abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. Enforcing any disability arising from it is a punishable offence, and it binds private persons as well as the State.
What is the difference between the PCR Act and the SC/ST Atrocities Act?
The PCR Act, 1955 punishes the practice of untouchability, such as denying temple or well access. The PoA Act, 1989 punishes atrocities against SC/ST members by non-members and provides special courts.
Can State governments make laws to punish untouchability?
No. Under Article 35, only Parliament can make laws prescribing punishment for offences under Part III, including Article 17.
Related reading
Caste System in India: key concepts and constitutional safeguards (UPSC notes)
Practise previous-year Polity questions in the free PYQ vault
Sources
Constitution of India, Articles 15, 17 and 35 (Legislative Department)
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and amendments (India Code)
Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, 2020 (Supreme Court of India)
From The Daily UPSC Brief, 9 October 2026 — by Shivam Singh.
Spotted an error or something outdated? Tell us — we correct it.
About the author
Shivam Singh
Founder & Mentor, Minimalist IAS
Shivam has been through every stage of the exam himself — Prelims, repeated Mains attempts across UPSC and state civil services, and the interview board. For 7 years he has mentored aspirants one-to-one, helping 100+ clear various stages of the exam, including final selections.
More about Shivam →