Supreme Court Revisits Essential Religious Practices Doctrine: Constitutional Morality vs. Religious Autonomy

Indian Express - Opinion · 3 May 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance

The Supreme Court's nine-judge bench is re-examining the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine in the Sabarimala review case, questioning its alignment with constitutional morality and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21.

Key points

Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine originated in the 1954 Shirur Mutt case, where the SC distinguished between religious belief and practice, granting autonomy to religious communities to define 'essential' practices.

The doctrine evolved in Sri Venkataramana Devaru (1958), where the Court began scrutinizing religious practices, moving from complete deference to active judicial examination of what constitutes 'essential' practices.

In Mohd. Hanif Qureshi (1959), the Court examined Islamic texts to determine if cow sacrifice was an essential practice, establishing judicial authority to interpret religious texts.

Article 25(1) is uniquely subject to other fundamental rights (Articles 14, 15, 21), indicating religious freedom was never intended to override equality and dignity, as highlighted in Justice Chandrachud's Sabarimala concurrence.

[GS2-Polity] The ERP test conflicts with constitutional morality (established in Navtej Singh Johar, 2018), which requires practices to align with the Constitution's foundational values rather than majority public morality.

Current ERP framework risks making courts amateur theologians, requiring them to determine religious essentiality rather than assessing practices against constitutional values of equality and dignity.

Article 25(2)(b) preserves state power to enact social reform laws, reflecting the framers' intent to prevent religion from perpetuating injustice, particularly in Hindu public institutions.

[GS1-Society] The Sabarimala case exemplifies the tension between religious tradition and gender equality, testing whether exclusionary practices can withstand constitutional scrutiny under Articles 14 and 15.

Way Forward: The Court should shift from asking 'is this practice essential?' to 'is this practice compatible with constitutional values?', establish clear judicial standards for evaluating religious practices against fundamental rights, and strengthen legislative mechanisms under Article 25(2) for social reform.

Key terms

Article 25(1)

Guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, but is expressly subject to other fundamental rights (Articles 14, 15, 21). This unique subordination makes religious freedom contingent on equality and dignity, crucial for UPSC's polity questions.

Shirur Mutt Case (1954)

Landmark judgment where a 7-judge bench first articulated the ERP doctrine, ruling that religious freedom covers both belief and practice. It initially granted religious communities autonomy to define essential practices, a position later modified by subsequent rulings.

Essential Religious Practices (ERP)

A judicial doctrine determining which religious practices are protected under Article 25. Originating in Shirur Mutt (1954), it grants courts authority to distinguish 'essential' practices from secular or superstitious ones. For UPSC, its evolution reflects the tension between religious autonomy and constitutional rights.

Constitutional Morality

A principle established in Navtej Singh Johar (2018), requiring state actions and laws to align with the Constitution's core values of justice, liberty, equality, and dignity. It acts as a check against majoritarianism and is central to debates on religious freedom versus individual rights.