The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine is a judicial concept developed by the Supreme Court of India to determine which religious practices are protected under the Constitution. It is a judge-made test that distinguishes between practices that are fundamental and integral to a religion and those that are merely secular, social, or peripheral. The doctrine's origin traces back to a speech by B.R. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly, where he argued for the State's right to intervene in non-intrinsically religious matters.
The doctrine was formally created by a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in 1954 in the case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiyar of Shri Shirur Mutt (the Shirur Mutt case). The problem it solved was defining the scope of the fundamental right to freedom of religion, ensuring that only the core tenets of a faith, without which the religion would lose its fundamental character, receive constitutional protection.
The ERP doctrine works by allowing courts to examine religious texts and tenets to ascertain if a practice is an essential and integral part of the religion. Only practices deemed essential are protected under Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion) and Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution. Non-essential or secular activities associated with religion, such as economic or commercial ones, can be regulated by the State under Article 25(2)(a).
The doctrine is closely connected to the concept of Constitutional Morality, which the courts have increasingly used to scrutinize religious practices against fundamental rights like equality (Article 14) and non-discrimination (Article 15). A significant recent change is the application of the doctrine in landmark judgments: in 2017, the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India held that instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) was not an essential practice of Islam and was unconstitutional. Similarly, in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), the Court held that the exclusion of women aged 10 to 50 from the Sabarimala temple was not an essential practice of Hinduism. The doctrine itself has not been replaced, but its application is currently being re-examined by a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.