Supreme Court Questions 'Elitist' Nature of Essential Religious Practice Doctrine in Sabarimala Review

The 1954 Shirur Mutt case introduced the Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test, allowing judges to determine which religious rituals deserve protection under Articles 25 and 26. This has long forced courts into the role of theologians—a shift the current nine-judge bench is now scrutinizing. The bench noted that the doctrine often prioritizes the views of a learned or dominant segment of a community, potentially marginalizing diverse or minority practices within the same faith. This 'elitist' bias complicates the balance between group religious autonomy and individual constitutional rights.

The Sabarimala reference case seeks a definitive framework to resolve these tensions, particularly regarding gender equality. The outcome will set the legal precedent for pending disputes involving the hijab ban and female genital mutilation. By focusing on constitutional morality, the Court signals a potential departure from scriptural interpretation in favor of universal rights.

• Article 25: Individual freedom of conscience and religion.
• Article 26: Collective right to manage religious affairs.
• Core Conflict: Group autonomy vs. individual equality.

Glossary

Essential Religious Practice (ERP): A judicial test determining whether a ritual is integral to a religion and thus constitutionally protected.

Constitutional Morality: The legal principle that core values like justice and equality take precedence over traditional or religious customs.

NaukriSync Exam Angle

Polity & Governance. The 9-judge bench is reviewing a doctrine established in the 1954 Shirur Mutt case. Anticipate questions on the conflict between Articles 25-26 and Part III rights, or the specific bench size and landmark cases associated with religious freedom.