A nine-judge Bench will review the constitutional principles from the Sabarimala verdict, especially the scope of the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine and its balance with equality.
Foundations of Religious Freedom
- Article 25 (Individual Rights): This article guarantees every individual the right to profess, practice, and propagate their faith.
- It protects personal acts of faith, such as a person going to a temple, offering namaz, or a Sikh wearing a turban.
- Article 26 (Group Rights): This provides religious denominations the right to manage their own religious affairs.
- For example, a Gurdwara committee deciding on langar or a church appointing its trustees falls under this collective right.
- Restrictions and Conflicts:
- Non-Absolute Rights: These rights are not absolute and can be restricted by the state on grounds of public order, morality, health, or when they conflict with other fundamental rights, such as Article 14 (Right to Equality).
- Direct Conflict: A conflict often arises when an individual’s Article 25 rights clash with a group’s Article 26 rights. Example: An individual wanting temple entry while a religious trust cites tradition to bar them.
About the Sabarimala Case (2018)
- The Issue: Women aged 10–50, considered to be in their menstruating years, were customarily prohibited from entering the temple to protect the deity’s celibate nature as Lord Ayyappa is considered an “eternal celibate” (Naishtika Brahmachari).
- Majority View (4:1): In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), the Supreme Court allowed entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala Temple.
- It held that the exclusion of women aged 10–50 violated Articles 14, 15 and 25.
- They argued that Ayyappa devotees are not a separate religious denomination (unlike Vaishnavs or Shaivites) and thus do not have special protection under Article 26 to exclude others.
- Minority View (Justice Indu Malhotra): She argued that in a secular polity, the court should not interfere in internal religious customs or try to apply a general “equality formula” to religious traditions.
The Essential Religious Practice (ERP) Test
- Origin: Established in the 1954 Shirur Mutt case, this test determines which practices are integral to a religion and thus protected by the Constitution.
- Flaws in ERP:
- The “Religious Mantle” Problem: The ERP test compels courts to assume a theological role by determining what is essential to a religion, thereby risking violation of the secular principle that the judiciary should not adjudicate matters of faith.
- Practical and Evidentiary Limitations: Courts often decide questions of “essentiality” without detailed oral evidence, cross-examination, or expert theological testimony, making the evidentiary basis for such determinations inherently weak.
- Dignity vs. Essentiality Conflict: The ERP test fails to answer whether a practice, even if deemed essential to religion, should be upheld when it infringes upon an individual’s constitutional rights to dignity, equality, and liberty.
The Anti-Exclusion Test (Alternative Framework proposed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud)
- Deference: Courts respect the autonomy of religious communities to define their own doctrines and tenets, instead of undertaking theological interpretation themselves.
- Anti Exclusion Check: However, where a religious practice results in the exclusion of individuals in a manner that impairs their dignity or denies them equal access to civic life, constitutional values of equality and liberty prevail over such custom.
Comparison: ERP Test vs. Anti-Exclusion Test
| Aspect |
ERP Test |
Anti-Exclusion Test |
| Core Question |
Is the practice essential to the religion? |
Does the practice result in exclusion that violates equality and dignity? |
| Focus |
Theological centrality and religious essentiality |
Equal treatment and protection of individual dignity |
| Court’s Role |
Judges become theologians — decide what is religiously essential |
Courts defer to religious autonomy; intervene only against exclusion |
| Approach to Dignity |
No clear answer if essential practice violates dignity |
Dignity is the central principle of constitutional scrutiny |
| Impact on Secularism |
Conflicts with secularism — courts enter the theological domain |
Preserves secularism — no theological judgment needed |
Future Legal Implications
- 2026 Review: A nine-judge bench will review these issues in 2026 to set a definitive precedent for religious freedom in India. This ruling will directly impact other significant cases, including:
- Dawoodi Bohra Community: The religious leaders of this community have the power to excommunicate members. The constitutional question that arises is:
- Is this protected under Article 26 (denominational rights)?
- Or does it violate basic fundamental rights such as dignity and equality?
- Parsi Women: If a Parsi woman marries outside her faith:
- Can she continue practising Zoroastrianism?
- Should community rules override her individual religious identity?
Conclusion
The ultimate resolution lies in striking a harmonious balance between protecting religious autonomy and upholding constitutional values of equality and individual dignity.
26 Feb 2026
.png)
Current Affairs
GS Foundation
Optional Course
Combo Courses
Degree Program
