Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan Challenges Essential Religious Practice Test in Sabarimala Reference (2026)

On the fifth day of the Sabarimala reference hearing (2026), Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued that the prevailing "essential religious practice" test is constitutionally unsafe. He urged the nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court to adopt a simpler "bona‑fide belief" standard under Article 25 and Article 26 . His submission touches on several landmark judgments and doctrinal principles that are vital for UPSC aspirants. Key Developments Dhavan contended that the Court should assess whether a belief is bona‑fide , not whether it is "essential". He cited Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) as precedent. Reference was made to the English case R. (Williamson) , reinforcing the limited inquiry approach. Dhavan advocated applying the doctrine of proportionality to harmonise Articles 25 and 26. He criticised the majority’s addition of an "exclusive distinctiveness" test in the Sabarimala judgment , calling for its overruling. Important Facts The bench hearing the reference comprised CJI Surya Kant and Justices BV Nagarathna , MM Sundresh , Ahsanuddin Amanullah , Aravind Kumar , Augustine George Masih , Prasanna B. Varale , R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi . Dhavan argued that the phrase "nothing in this article" of Article 25(2) should be read expansively to prevent individual rights from obstructing social reforms. He also maintained that Article 26(b) is a sovereign institutional right, not subordinate to Article 25. UPSC Relevance Understanding the balance between constitutional morality and individual religious liberty is essential for GS2 questions on fundamental rights. The debate illustrates how the judiciary interprets "essential religious practice"—a concept frequently examined in past Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Devaru case ). Dhavan’s reliance on comparative jurisprudence (UK case) underscores the importance of cross‑jurisdictional analysis for comparative law topics. Way Forward Dhavan proposes a two‑pronged approach: (i) replace the "essential practice" test with a "bona‑fide belief" standard, and (ii) interpret Articles 25 and 26 together through the proportionality test . If the bench adopts this framework, future disputes over temple entry, gender equality, and religious reforms could be resolved with clearer constitutional guidance, aligning individual rights with social objectives while preserving institutional autonomy.