Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices

Context:

Recently, the doctrine of “Essential Religious Practices” (ERP) has come into discussion in the context of the hearing of the Sabarimala review case. The active role of the judiciary in cases related to various religious practices such as the hijab dispute, Sabarimala temple entry, rights of Muslim women, and administration of religious institutions has raised the question of whether courts should determine which practices of a religion are “essential” and which are not.

What is the Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices (ERP)?

• • • The doctrine of Essential Religious Practices is a constitutional principle developed by the Indian judiciary, through which it is determined which practices of a religion will receive protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
    • Article 25 grants citizens the freedom of religion, while Article 26 provides religious institutions the right to manage their own religious affairs.
    • The origin of this doctrine can be traced to the famous Shirur Mutt Case of 1954. The Supreme Court held that only those practices would receive constitutional protection which constitute an “integral and essential” part of a religion.

Growing Role of Judicial Intervention:

• • • Over time, the ERP doctrine has become a major basis for the Indian judiciary in resolving religious disputes. In several important cases, courts have attempted to examine whether a particular practice is truly an essential part of a religion or not. Major examples include:
      • Sabarimala Case (2018): The Supreme Court held that the restriction on the entry of women was against gender equality.
      • Triple Talaq Case: The Court held that triple talaq was not an essential religious practice in Islam and declared it unconstitutional.
      • Hijab Dispute: In the Karnataka hijab controversy, the question was also raised whether wearing a hijab constitutes an essential religious practice in Islam.
      • Cases related to the Dawoodi Bohra community and animal sacrifice: Courts attempted to strike a balance between religious freedom and public order.
    • These cases made it clear that the judiciary is no longer merely a constitutional interpreter, but in many instances has also become an institution determining the validity of religious practices.

Major Criticisms:

• • • “Theological” Intervention by the Judiciary: Critics argue that courts do not possess the expertise to interpret religious scriptures and traditions. When courts decide which practices are essential, they indirectly begin intervening in religious matters.
    • Subjective Interpretation: There is no clear standard for determining an “essential practice.” Different benches have adopted different approaches in different cases, resulting in judicial inconsistency.
    • Religious Freedom vs Social Reform: The ERP doctrine has often been used to advance social reforms. However, this has intensified the debate over whether the State and judiciary have the authority to alter religious traditions.

Constitutional and Social Significance:

• • • The Indian Constitution views secularism not merely as the “separation of State and religion,” but as “equal respect” for all religions. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to protect religious freedom while also ensuring fundamental rights, particularly equality, dignity, and gender justice.
    • Now, the ERP doctrine has become a means of establishing a balance among three important values in Indian democracy:
      • Religious freedom,
      • Social justice,
      • Constitutional morality.

Conclusion:

The doctrine of Essential Religious Practices is a tool for maintaining a balance between religion and the State. Although it faces criticism, it remains necessary in a diverse society like India for promoting social reform and eliminating orthodoxy. The doctrine of Essential Religious Practices has become a complex yet important part of India’s constitutional framework. At a time when conflicts between religious identity and constitutional values are increasing, the role of the judiciary becomes even more sensitive. There is a need for courts to adopt a balanced, restrained, and constitutional approach in religious matters so that both religious freedom and social justice can be protected.