Judicial Oversight in Temple Disputes: Constitutional Morality vs Religious Practices

The Hindu - Opinion · 24 Feb 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance

Madras High Court's recent judgments on temple rituals highlight the judiciary's constitutional role in adjudicating religious disputes, balancing Articles 25-26 freedoms with public order and morality under the 'essential religious practice' test.

Key points

Essential Religious Practice Test: Courts examine whether customs like hymn recitation rights are integral to religion under Article 25, with non-essential practices open to judicial intervention for constitutional compliance.

Historical Shift: Pre-1950 temple disputes like Kamudhi temple case were treated as civil rights matters; post-Constitution, they became fundamental rights issues under Articles 25-26 with public order exceptions.

Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1927: Early legislation established state supervision of temples, paving way for contemporary governance models under state HR&CE departments.

Constitutional Morality Standard: Sabarimala judgment (2018) held even essential practices must conform to constitutional values of equality (Articles 14-15) and dignity (Article 21).

[GS2-Governance] Temple governance connects to state capacity building, as seen in HR&CE Departments' audit powers over religious endowments under Entry 28 of List II.

Judicial Federalism: Southern states like Tamil Nadu developed unique jurisprudence through local laws challenged under Article 226, creating a template for religion-state relations.

[GS1-History] The Privy Council's 1908 Kamudhi temple ruling reflects colonial-era civil rights struggles, contrasting with post-independence constitutional adjudication frameworks.

Way Forward: States should establish interfaith dispute resolution councils, codify 'essential practice' criteria through Law Commission guidelines, and mandate transparency in temple governance under RTI Act exemptions review.

Key terms

Articles 25-26

Constitutional provisions guaranteeing freedom of religion (Article 25) and rights of religious denominations (Article 26), subject to public order, health, and morality. Critical for UPSC as they define limits of state intervention in religious affairs.

Essential Religious Practice Test

Doctrine developed by SC to determine if a custom is integral to religion. UPSC relevance lies in its application in cases like Sabarimala and Hijab bans, testing judicial balancing of faith and constitutional rights.

Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1927

Pioneering legislation enabling state regulation of temples. Important for understanding the constitutional evolution of state-temple relations under Seventh Schedule's State List entries.

Constitutional Morality

Principle from Navtej Singh Johar case requiring all practices to align with constitutional values. Vital for GS2 questions on judicial review and fundamental rights restrictions.