Seven Decades of Shame: Article 17, Dignity and the Persistence of Untouchability

ABSTRACT

The abolition of inequality, untouchability and any form of discrimination is not merely a fundamental principle of the Indian constitution but also a moral pledge of Indian Society. Yet, these collective afflictions continue to manifest through the acts of symbolic violence, strangling the very soul of the constitution. This article examines how the inconsistency between constitutional law and social practice allows assaults on personal dignity and constitutional authority. This shows how despite the constitutional command of Article 17 and the punitive framework of the PoA Act, caste-based social stigma and symbolic violence persist, demonstrating a failure to translate legal abolition into true social equality and a continuous violation of the fundamental right to human dignity.

INTRODUCTION:

The Indian Republic rest on a paradox: A Constitution that explicitly abolished untouchability under Article 17 and makes any enforcement of a disability arising from it a punishable offence while its society still actively, viciously, perpetuates it. For over seven decades, that is even after the completion of 78 years of independence, this non-negotiable constitutional right has remained an “unfinished writ”, thus transforming national aspiration into a “seven decades of shame”. This inconsistency between the law and legal action is manifested in several actions of symbolic violence such as serving tea in separate glasses for Dalits, dismounting a Dalit groom form horse, making them to walk without slippers etc.

Such attacks against personal liberty dignity and constitutional authority reached a new height when Chief Justice of India B.R Gavai, himself belonging to Schedule Caste community, became the target of public humiliation inside the Supreme Court premises. And further the tragic suicide of a high ranking Dalit IPS Officer who had attained the status of State power

shows that institutional prejudice is so pervasive that even success and authority offer no refuge from symbolic violence.

To understand the tenacity of this humiliation, one has to trace its roots to the very foundation of the caste order.

BIRTH OF CASTE SYSTEM:

There are various theories on the origin and the history of the caste system. The most prominent among them are the Religious Origin Theory and Colour (Varna) Theory.

Purusha Sukta of the Rigveda (1500-1200 BCE):

As per the religious origin theory the Purusha Sukta of the Rigveda (1500-1200 BCE) describes the four varnas emerging from the cosmic being (Purusha) i.e the Brahmins - from the head (priests, teachers), Kshatriyas - from the arms (warriors, rulers), Vaishays - from the thighs (traders, farmers) and Shudras - from the feet (labourers, servants). Religion thus legitimized inequality under the idea of Dharma According to Varna.

The Colour Theory:

As per the Colour Theory the sanskrit word “Varna” means “colour”. When the Aryans migrated into India they were lighter-skinned and viewed the darker indigenous “Dasas” as inferior. Later, religious and purity notions blended with colour theory, giving rise to permanent social ranking.

ARYAN’S ROLE - Aryan elites institutionalized varna for maintaining their domination over the indigenous. Strict rules in favor of inter marriage (endogamy) and hereditary occupations barred social mobility. Scriptural texts such as Manusmriti made defiance of the order of caste as sinful, assuring long term domination.

Thus, Varna (Ideal Four-fold Division) Evolved into Jathi (Birth Based Caste System.

THE LEGAL ANCHOR:

ARTICLE 17:

Article 17 is a basic right under part 3 of the Indian Constitution that prohibits and abolishes the practice of untouchability in any form. Further in the case of Jai Singh v. Union Of India1 and Devrajiah v. B.Padmanna 2, the Court ruled that “the word untouchability in Art. 17 does not have a grammatical or literal meaning. Instead, it refers to the historical system of caste based social disabilities. Practices such as social boycotts or exclusions from religious services, unless tied to caste-based discrimination, do not fall within the ambit of Art. 17”.

Thus, this article absolutely abolishes untouchability in the form of social disability arising out of it. Though this article was self-executory, it faces significant challenges in implementation, including its vague definition and the deep-seated nature of caste-based prejudice. Thus, this mandate led directly to the enactment of two statutory regimes that criminalises caste-based humiliation and violence.

The Protection of Civil Rights Act,1955:

It was originally titled as The Untouchability (offences) Act,1955 but later on in 1976 it was renamed thus reflecting a shift in focus from mere “offences” to the “Protection of civil right”.

-Section 4 of this act criminalises “the prevention of a person from entering into a hospital, public eatery, or place of public entertainment” on the grounds of untouchability.

-Section 5 punishes “the denial of access to any public utility or service, including the use of public amenities like roads, rivers, or crematorium”, based on untouchability.

-Section 6 outlaws “the refusal to sell good or services or the denial of practising any profession, trade or businesses to someone” due to untouchability.

-Section 7 addresses the “compulsion of individuals to do menial jobs like sweeping, scavenging or removing carcasses” due to untouchability.

The Act, though undergone many significant changes but it was further supplemented by the most stringent The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989, which provides enhanced penalties for caste based crimes.

The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:

-Section 3 of this act explicitly details the “offences” that qualify as "atrocities" against members of the SC and ST communities. This section applies to any person who is not a member of SC or ST.

Acts criminalized under Section 3

-Forcibly drinking or eating any inedible or obnoxious substance.

-Dumping waste, carcasses, or excreta on the premises or in the neighbourhood of an SC or ST member.

-Forcibly removing clothes, tonsuring a head, or painting the face or body of an SC or ST member in a way that is derogatory to human dignity.

-Garlanding an SC or ST member with footwear.

-Intentionally insulting, intimidating, or humiliating an SC or ST member within public view. -Abusing an SC or ST member by their caste name in public.

-Disrespecting any deceased person held in high esteem by members of the SC or ST community.

-Forcing or making an SC or ST member perform manual scavenging.

Property and land-related offenses

-Occupying or cultivating land belonging to, or assigned to, an SC or ST member in violation of law

-Dispossessing an SC or ST member of land or premises in contravention of law -Interfering with the rights of an SC or ST member over land, water, or forest produce -Damaging crops or removing the produce from an SC or ST member's land

Sexual exploitation and abuse

-Touching an SC or ST woman in a sexual way without her permission. -Using words, acts, or gestures of a sexual nature toward an SC or ST woman. -Forcing or promoting the practice of dedicating an SC or ST woman as a Devadasi.

Denial of social and economic rights

-Imposing or threatening a social or economic boycott against an SC or ST person or family. -Denying an SC or ST member any customary right of passage to a public place. -Forcibly driving or making an SC or ST member out of his house, or village.

-Denying an SC or ST member the use of common property resources or entry into public places of worship, education, or healthcare.

THE STIGMA OF SPACE AND MOVEMENT

Due to a regressive caste system in many parts of India dominant caste communities impose certain unwritten rules upon lower castes. It includes removing footwear, walking barefoot, dismounting bicycles or motorbikes when they enter a particular street and many more. These are prevalent till today.

Real life Scenarios

• The New Indian Express in 2023, reported that Dalits are not allowed to wear footwear by members of the dominant community. Further the age-old discriminatory practices of Double Tumbler System i.e tea is served in separate glasses for Dalits.i

• In The News Minute, Dec 24,1923 reported that An Arunthathiyar person told TNIE ‘when untouchability was banned after independence, members of the dominant caste conjured up a story to perpetuate the practice, saying that a black magic doll has been buried under the street and if Dalits walked on the street with slippers, they will die within three months. Some Dalits believed those stories and started walking without slippers and the practice continues to this day.’ii

• A similar event occurred in Odisha. The New Indian Express (24 Jun 2025) reported that two Dalit men were beaten up, tortured, forced to eat grass, drink sewage on cattle smuggling in Ganjam district. iii

• The Times of India, March 2025 reported that A Dalit groom was assaulted and threatened with death if he did not dismount his horse during a wedding procession in Agra, UP.iv

• India Today Sep, 2025 reported that in Kollangaraj village, Tamilnadu, Dalit students were blocked from walking on a recognized common public lane (vandi pathari) by an elderly woman, forced to take a much longer detour. v

• Times of India, May 2025 reported that in Mahoba (UP), upper caste individuals reportedly forced a Dalit groom and his family to remove their slippers while walking past them on the way to a temple. When the groom resisted, violence followed. vi

These lists are unending; it shows that practice is not isolated but a recurring form of caste based spatial control. Further these acts are not merely symbolic violence but it also restricts bodily autonomy, movement and equal social standing.

Constitutional Violation-Why this a breach of FR?

Forcing a person to remove footwear and walk barefoot, practising double tumbler system, forcing them to drink sewage, denying their entry to public places of worship, eatery or entertainment is a deprivation of personal dignity as well as an impediment to free movement. So, it engages Art 21(right to live with dignity) and Art 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement) of the Indian Constitution.

Article 21:

As per Indian Constitution ‘No person shall be deprived of their life except according to the procedure of law.’ In the case of Francis Coaralie Mullin v Union Territory of Delhi3, the Supreme Court interpreted ‘Life’ that it does not merely animal existence but also the right to live with human dignity and all that goes with it such as physical existence, bodily integrity and health. Some common atrocities such as

· Physical Assault/ bodily injury (beatings, torture, force crawling, sexual violence)

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration4, D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal5, the Supreme Court laid down the principle that “it is the state's obligation to protect bodily integrity which also includes protecting vulnerable groups from private violence too”.

· Forced demanding postures (forced barefooting forced dismounting, forced prostitution, torturing, eating filth)

The Supreme Court in K.S Puttuswamy v. Union of India6reaffirmed “dignity and autonomy as core constitutional values”. Attack on the human body and self- respect converts the body into a site of public humiliation. Dignity is central to Article 21.

· Special exclusion and restriction on movement (blocking lanes, banning footwear, denial of entry to temple or public places)

In Menka Gandhi v. Union Of India7, Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation8 provide “principles of livelihood and ability to use public spaces. Interference with personal liberty and ability to move and use of public places denies the social substance of life”.

Thus Article 21 not only forbids Arbitrary State action but also imposes positive duties on the State to protect the citizen from private violence and humiliation that effectively deny life with dignity.

Article 19:

Guarantee every citizen the right “to move freely throughout the territory of India.” This protects the ability to move to any public place without lawful hindrance. These are the atrocities that directly hit the Right to move

• Physical obstruction

Like blocking a public lane, denying access to an ordinary route.

• Coerced modification of movement

For example, compelling a person to remove footwear, dismount or adopt humiliating posture to pass.

• Fear/ terrorising environment

Regular threat, assault or the credible risk of violence that cause persons to avoid certain streets or public activities.

While Article 19 primarily restrain state's action, state's failure to protect citizens against private actors who block movement or create terror also nullifies the right in practice.

THE STIGMA OF POWER AND PUBLIC LIFE

The shoe hurling at CJI, incident shows that even in formal institutions, caste hierarchies are not neutralised rather even at these positions also they are prevalent; they manifest aggressive gestures and symbolic acts.

What actually happened?

On Oct 6, 2025, during proceedings in the SC, a 71yr old advocate Rakesh Kishore allegedly attempted to throw a shoe at CJI B.R Gavai. He reportedly shouted slogans such as “Sanatan Dharm ka apmaan nahi sahenge” (We will not tolerate disrespect to Sanatan Dharm) while the incident occurred.vii

Following the incident, multiple FIR were registered in state such as Punjab for caste-based validation of CJI Gavai on social media, with charges under the PoA Act being invoked.viii

This shows that, professional status did not shield the target from caste-based aggression.

Being CJI is the highest constitutional officers in India. His professional achievement and office would generally command respect and immunity from such acts. But this incident shows that achieving the highest position does not fully protect against caste-based contempt or aggression.

Commentators have analyzed the incident as not only the breach of court decorum but also a signal

• Anand Teltumbde writes: ‘Chief Justice Gavai's Dalit identity is not incidental to the attack - if is central….. The trappings of office, education and power cannot erase centuries of prejudice.’ix

• The Indian Express opined: “The attack.. is a reminder of casteist manifestation of hatred… The very presence of a Dalit Chief Justice unsettles the dominant forms of emotion.”x

• Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah explicitly said that the incident was a stark reminder that caste-based prejudice and Manuvaadi Mindset continue to persist even 75 yrs after the enactment of the Constitution.xi

It is not just limited to one incident for instance

• In Sirsa, Haryana, after the suicide of a Dalit IPS officer Y Puran Kumar allegedly subjected to caste harassment, protesters explicitly linked his death to the Gavai shoe incident to show even high-status Dalits remain vulnerable.xii

• A Dalit engineer working for PUWNL was attacked in his office by a group led by a local politician, abused with caste slurs; FIR under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered. (Dalit Superintending Engineer Lal Singh (UP, Ballia)xiii

• Head teacher (Dalit) assaulted in Punjab region (Fazilka, Punjab) A government school head teacher (Dalit) was assaulted and humiliated by shop owners, and caste-insulted; FIR includes section 3(1)(s) of PoA Act.xiv

• Dalit scholar terminated from management institute (Trichy, Tamil Nadu), A Dalit PhD/MBA scholar terminated allegedly due to caste bias; director booked under PoA Act.xv

What this shows is that caste prejudice is not limited to overt poverty or low-status spaces: it extends into public life, professional rankings and the highest echelons of the State. Professional status may change, but caste-based violence and humiliation do not vanish — they often mutate into public messages of subordination.

JUDICIAL RESPONSE AND THE PATH TO TRUE ABOLITION

• Judicial Interpretations of Article 17 and Dignity

Under Article 21, the Constitution of India guarantees to provide equality and human dignity by stating that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”. This has been utilised by the courts in a manner to elucidate the rights of members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (PoA Act) considering the prohibition of untouchability under Article 17. Courts have consistently held that dignity is inherent and doesn't depend upon social status or caste. Humiliation based on caste is an undeviating injury to the constitutional guarantee.

For instance, in Swaran Singh & Anr. v. State through Standing Counsel & Anr. 9the complainant being a Scheduled Caste person was addressed with his caste name "Chamar" while standing near the gate of a premises. The Supreme Court held that “this use of the caste slur amounted to an atrocity under Section 3(1)(x) of the PoA Act (insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate in public view)”. The Court emphasised that the popular meaning of the slur must be considered (even if etymologically the word might have been neutral) because the object of the Act is to prevent indignities and harassment of SC/ST community members.

This demonstrates how the Court reads Article 21’s dignity dimension into the PoA Act: humiliation because of caste is not merely an insult but an infringement of constitutional dignity.

In recent commentary and legal analysis, scholars note that humiliation; especially public humiliation is a form of “hate crime” within the caste context: the use of caste-slurs, segregation, exclusion, or insult in public view denies the victim the right to live with dignity, free of caste-based indignity.

Another key point is that the Court has held that the insult/intimidation need not occur exactly in the presence of the victim. In Gayatri vs. State & Ors. 10 the abuse happened on Facebook; although the Court quashed the complaint on those facts, it nevertheless observed that “Section 3(1)(x) does not require the member of SC/ST to be present at the time of insult/intimidation, if it is done with intent to humiliate based on caste identity in public view. This interpretation expands the dignity protection lens.”

These judgments show the judiciary’s willingness to interpret the PoA Act as a social-justice legislation protecting historically oppressed groups, recognising humiliation or insult on caste base as a violation of dignity and human rights.

• The Enforcement Challenge

Regardless of the powerful jurisprudence, enforcement of the PoA Act is a tremendous challenge. Some of the major issues:

1. Low rates of conviction: Although many cases under the PoA Act are reported but a very few of them end in conviction which dilutes the deterrent impact. For example, caste-based slurs resulting in public humiliation may be complained of, but the investigating machinery or prosecution often fails to secure conviction.

2. Police reluctance/apathy: Triviality to the graveness of caste atrocity cases in society by the investigation officers is a serious drawback of the enforcement process. The officers may handle these cases as regular cases while these kinds of offences require special attention. Technical delays, lack of knowledge, or prejudice can hinder the investigation as well.

3. Intimidation of witnesses and social pressure: There is a huge possibility that the victims and witnesses of the marginalized communities can be intimidated or socially ostracized, which leads to unwillingness to provide evidence or assist in investigation. This ultimately diminishes efficient prosecution

4. Witness intimidation and community pressure: Victims and witnesses from marginalized communities may face threats or social ostracism, creating reluctance to cooperate or testify. This again reduces effective prosecution.

5. Technical loopholes and hyper-technical defences: For example, in Kailas & Others vs State of Maharashtra 11 the Bombay High Court “acquitted the accused under the PoA Act because the complainant did not produce a caste certificate and investigation was not by a DSP”. The Supreme Court, however, overruled by stating such hyper

technical grounds cannot defeat bona fide cases when evidence inspires confidence. 6. Private vs public view distinction: Some courts have held that insults/acts must be in a “place within public view” (Section 3(1)(x)). In circumstances where caste‐based abuse occurs inside a home or private setting, courts might hold the PoA Act not triggered. This narrows the remedial coverage.

In our society legal infrastructure and judicial interpretations are certainly robust, social will and implementation machinery are significant weaknesses. Effectiveness of the law hinges upon sensitised police, active prosecutors, accessible legal aid to victims, and community empowerment.

• The Way Forward:

The law covers a wide range of offences from verbal abuse and social boycotts to grievous assault, land grabbing land sexual violence but India’s commitment to social justice has not been free from controversy, misuse or implementation hurdles. The following are certain suggestions in order to make the laws more effective.

1. Legal awareness: Many victims are unaware of their rights. Grassroots legal literacy campaigns are essential. Expand Eklavya Model Residential Schools (EMRS) to all tribal blocks. Further implementation of anti-caste curriculum would help to combat caste-discrimination.

2. Support system: Civil society, NGOs, and State agencies must collaborate to provide psychological, legal and social support to victims. Further the National Commission for SCs/ STs should be empowered with suo moto investigation powers plus mandatory annual social audits to parliament.

3. Economic empowerment: Accelerating Forest Right Act, 2006 helps to secure land for STs and also helps in expanding Pradhan Mantri Dakshta aur Kushalta Sampaan Hitgrahi (PM-DAKSH). This provides increased budget and industry ties for skilled training. Via. Zero balance account, micro loans and twenty five percent procurement quotas for sc/st -owned business in government tenders would help in promoting financial inclusion.

4. Strengthening Legal and Judicial Mechanism: Mandatory time bound trials and specialized training for judges and prosecutors for exclusive SC/ST atrocities courts would help in better implementation of the laws. Further police sensitivity should be enhanced through compulsory training and strict penalties for delays. Further 24/7 helplines would help in prompt atrocities reporting.

5. Improved Reporting and Monitoring: Digital complaint portals with a National SCs/STs atrocity tracking dashboard plus whistle blower protection for victims and witnesses would help in enhanced reporting and Monitoring. Further atrocity prone districts should be mapped using NCRB data and deploy special forces in order to prevent policing and conflict resolution.

CONCLUSION

The continuity of untouchability has been marked as not only a betrayal to the Constitution but also the expression of our collective failure as a society even after the Seventy-eight years of independence. Article 17 was adopted in order to take a moral and legal rupture from centuries of caste abuse and to form an impartial society where dignity was not subject to birth. However, the collective strength of constitutional command and statutory enactments like the PCR Act, 1955 and the PoA Act, 1989 couldn't resist the caste-based humiliation that was experienced by millions. The presence of symbolic violence reveals the underlying social rigidity that law by itself cannot rectify.

Though judicial pronouncements stretched the meaning of “life” and “liberty” to include caste based humiliations as offences under Article 21, jurisprudence without institutional sensitivity is sterile. The instances of violence and humiliation even against those in authority shows that caste is not just a social identity but a proper tool of exclusion. The true abolition of untouchability requires moral awakening more than punitive legislation. Until that day, Article 17 remains both a testament to vision and a reflection of national shame.

i M.P. Saravanan, Tamil Nadu: Dalits Banned from Wearing Slippers in 2 Udumalai Villages, Served Tea in Disposable Cups, The New Indian Express (Dec. 18, 2023), available at

Https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2023/Dec/18/tamil-nadu-dalits-banned-from-wearing slippers-in-2-udumalai-villages-served-tea-in-disposable-cups-2642525.html.

ii TNM Staff, “Dalits in Tirupur village defy segregation, walk on streets wearing slippers for first time,” The News Minute, 27 December 2023, https://www.thenewsminute.com/tamil-nadu/dalits-in-tirupur-village-defy segregation-walk-on-streets-wearing-slippers-for-first-time?utm

iii Odisha: 2 Dalit men beaten up, tonsured, forced to eat grass, drink drain water on cattle smuggling suspicion,” The New Indian Express, June 24, 2025,

https://www.newindianexpress.com/amp/story/states/odisha/2025/Jun/24/odisha-2-dalit-men-beaten-up tonsured-forced-to-eat-grass-drink-drain-water-on-cattle-smuggling-suspicion

iv Dalit groom on horse assaulted, hit with pistol butt in UP; 3 booked,” The Times of India, Mar. 12 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/agra/dalit-groom-on-horse-assaulted-hit-with-pistol-butt-in-up-3- booked/articleshow/118916699.cms?

v Tamil Nadu: Elderly woman in Tamil Nadu booked for stopping Dalit students from using common path,” The Indian Express, Sept. 27, 2025, https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chennai/tamil-nadu-woman-stops-dalit students-from-using-road-10275031/amp/?

vi Attack on Dalit newlyweds exposed BJP govt’s claims: Akhilesh,” The Times of India, May 22, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/attack-on-dalit-newlyweds-exposed-bjp-govts-claims akhilesh/articleshow/121324254.cms?

vii Attack on Justice Gavai: CJI B.R. Gavai – shoe thrown at CJI,” The Indian Express (Oct. 2025), https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/attack-on-justice-gavai-cji-br-gavai-show-thrown-at-cji 10294658/

viii Punjab Police file multiple FIRs for allegedly casteist posts about CJI Gavai after attack on him,” Scroll.in, Oct. 9, 2025, https://scroll.in/latest/1087442/punjab-police-file-multiple-firs-for-allegedly-casteist-posts-about cji-gavai-after-attack-on-him

ix Anand Teltumbde, ‘Attack on Dalit CJI Gavai recasts criminal aggression as nationalist virtue,’ Scroll.in, Oct. 8 2025, https://scroll.in/article/1087427/anand-teltumbde-attack-on-cji-gavai-recasts-criminal-aggression-as nationalist-virtue

x The attack on the CJI and the shadow of caste,” The Indian Express, Oct. 8, 2025,

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/attack-on-justice-gavai-cji-br-gavai-show-thrown-at-cji 10294658/

xi Karnataka CM condemns attack on CJI, says it shows ‘caste-based prejudice persists’,” The Print (Oct. 6, 2025), https://theprint.in/india/karnataka-cm-condemns-attack-on-cji-says-caste-based-prejudice persists/2758503/

xii Dalit IPS officer faced so much caste-based harassment that he took his own life,” The Times of India, Oct. 10, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/dalit-ips-officer-faced-so-much-caste-based-harassment that-he-took-his-own-life-says-kejriwal-demands-harshest-punishment-for-guilty/articleshow/124447902.cms

xiii Dalit power engineer attacked in Ballia office, FIR against local neta,” The Times of India, Aug. 24, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/dalit-power-engineer-attacked-in-ballia-office-fir-against local-neta/articleshow/123477290.cms

xiv Fazilka: Four Booked for Assaulting Dalit Head Teacher After Public Uproar,” Hindustan Times, Oct. 11, 2025, https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/fazilka-four-booked-for-assaulting-dalit-head teacher-after-public-uproar-101760210620550.html

xv BIM-Trichy Director Booked for Caste Bias,” The Times of India, Aug. 27, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/trichy/bim-trichy-director-booked-for-caste bias/articleshow/123531459.cms