The Essential Religious Practices test is a doctrine in search of its own limits
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is currently reviewing the Sabarimala judgment and the broader application of the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine. The editorial argues that the ERP test, established in 1954, forces courts to act as theologians and is constitutionally misaligned. It advocates for a shift towards evaluating religious practices against 'constitutional morality,' specifically principles of equality and dignity.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The article critically examines the evolution of the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine, which originated in the . Initially designed to distinguish religious from secular activities for administrative purposes, the doctrine has expanded, allowing courts to actively determine what is 'essential' to a religion. This evolution, seen in cases like , shifted the court from deferring to religious communities to scrutinizing scriptures. The author argues this is problematic because it forces secular judges to act as theologians. Furthermore, of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion, is uniquely subject to 'other provisions of this Part,' meaning it is subordinated to (Right to Equality), (Prohibition of Discrimination), and (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The state also retains power under to enact laws for social reform. The core tension lies in balancing individual fundamental rights against denominational autonomy protected under .
Social
The debate over the ERP doctrine has profound implications for social justice and gender equality, as highlighted by the . The exclusion of women of menstruating age from the Sabarimala temple was challenged as a violation of their fundamental rights. If courts solely rely on the ERP test, they might protect discriminatory practices simply because they are deemed 'essential' by the religious community. The author argues that religious freedom should not be a 'blank cheque' to perpetuate injustice. The application of Constitutional Morality, a concept emphasized in , is proposed as a more appropriate standard. Constitutional morality mandates that mental attitudes and social practices align with the core values of the Constitution—equality, dignity, and fraternity—acting as a safeguard against the 'tyranny of the majority' or entrenched patriarchal norms within religions. Therefore, practices that make individuals 'unequal before the divine' must be tested against these constitutional values rather than internal theological logic.
Governance
From a governance perspective, the Supreme Court's impending decision carries immense weight for the future of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The current ERP test is described as 'epistemically fraught,' meaning it relies on a flawed method of knowledge gathering (judges interpreting complex theological texts). A proposed shift towards evaluating religious practices based on their compatibility with constitutional commitments to equality and dignity would provide a more coherent and legally sound framework. This shift would not necessarily silence religious communities but would reassert the Constitution's hierarchy of values. The outcome of the nine-judge bench review will redefine the boundaries of judicial intervention in religious affairs, clarifying the state's role in initiating social reform while respecting genuine religious freedoms. It forces a reconciliation between historical religious traditions and modern democratic principles of human rights.