Supreme Court Calls ERP Doctrine ‘Elitist’ in Sabarimala Reference – Implications for Religious Freedom

<h2>Supreme Court’s Critique of the ERP Doctrine</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India’s apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and settles disputes on law and policy (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> delivered a striking observation during the conclusion of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala reference — A 16‑day Supreme Court hearing on temple entry, mosque entry, Parsi women’s identity, female genital mutilation and Dawoodi Bohra excommunication (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala reference</span>. Justice <strong>M.M. Sundresh</strong> described the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential Religious Practice (ERP) — A judicial test used to decide whether a religious practice is ‘essential’ and therefore protected under Articles 25, 26, 21 and 29 of the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">ERP</span> doctrine as ‘elitist’, meaning it favours organised, doctrinal religions and marginalises tribal or less‑structured faiths.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Justice Sundresh’s remark that ERP is elitist was echoed by Senior Advocate <strong>K. Parmeshwar</strong>, who argued the test creates a hierarchy of religious practices.</li> <li>Parmeshwar highlighted that <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 — Constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — Guarantees the right of every religious denomination to manage its own affairs (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span> protect even non‑doctrinal tribal religions, which ERP often fails to shield.</li> <li>Justice <strong>B.V. Nagarathna</strong> cautioned that ERP may be used as an aid but cannot serve as a decisive test to strike down legislation.</li> <li>Parmeshwar cited former CJI <strong>Dipak Misra</strong>’s observation that Sabarimala lacks distinctiveness, questioning the reliance on ‘novelty’ or ‘textual authority’ for constitutional protection.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The hearing spanned <strong>16 days</strong> and covered a broad spectrum of religious‑rights issues, including:</p> <ul> <li>Temple entry for women (Sabarimala)</li> <li>Mosque entry rights</li> <li>Parsi women’s religious identity</li> <li>Female genital mutilation</li> <li>Excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community</li> </ul> <p>Parmeshwar argued that the Constitution protects a person’s spiritual pursuit under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 21 — Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include dignity and identity (GS2: Polity)">Article 21</span>. By stripping a practice of protection through ERP, the state effectively dents that identity.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding the ERP doctrine is crucial for GS‑2 (Polity) as it touches upon:</p> <ul> <li>Interpretation of fundamental rights <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 29 — Protects cultural, linguistic and religious minorities by preserving distinct language, script or culture (GS2: Polity)">Article 29</span> and the balance between individual liberty and state regulation.</li> <li>Judicial activism versus restraint in matters of religion.</li> <li>The role of the judiciary in safeguarding minority rights and preventing majoritarian bias.</li> </ul> <p>Questions that frequently appear in prelims and mains include the scope of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential Religious Practice (ERP) — A judicial test used to decide whether a religious practice is ‘essential’ and therefore protected under Articles 25, 26, 21 and 29 of the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">ERP</span>, its constitutional validity, and its impact on tribal or indigenous faiths.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>For aspirants, the take‑aways are:</p> <ul> <li>Critically assess whether ERP aligns with the Constitution’s secular ethos or creates a hierarchy of faiths.</li> <li>Monitor forthcoming judgments that may refine or replace ERP with a more inclusive test, possibly focusing on the ‘essentiality of activity’ rather than ‘essentiality of religion’ as Dr. Ambedkar envisioned.</li> <li>Prepare concise notes on how Articles 25, 26, 21 and 29 interact in jurisprudence on religious freedom.</li> </ul> <p>Future debates will likely centre on redefining protection for non‑doctrinal religions while ensuring that the state does not over‑step into religious doctrine.</p>