Overview
The nine‑judge bench of the Supreme Court of India is wrestling with the applicability of the Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test in the ongoing Sabarimala reference. The debate revives doctrines from the Shirur Mutt judgment and the Dargah Committee judgment, and pits individual religious rights under Article 25 against collective rights in Article 26.
Key Developments
- Justice BV Nagarathna argued that once a practice is classified as secular, all remaining practices automatically fall under the ambit of religious practice, eliminating the need for a separate ERP test.
- Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah countered that the Court must first make a prima‑facie determination of whether a practice is religious, implying a case‑by‑case threshold.
- Senior Advocate V Giri maintained that worship rights under Article 25(1)(a) must align with the essential characteristics protected by Article 26.
- Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan advocated for discarding the ERP test altogether, emphasizing that the Constitution’s language is clear and that any restriction should arise from the horizontal provisions like Articles 15(2), 17, 23 and 24.
- Debate intensified over whether Denominational rights under Article 26(b) are subject to the social‑reform clause of Article 25(2)(b).
Important Facts
The bench comprises Chief Justice Surya Kant and eight other judges, including Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. Arguments presented today focused on: (i) the necessity of a threshold test to label a practice as religious; (ii) the interplay between Article 25 and Article 26; and (iii) whether the ERP test should be retained, modified, or abandoned.
Exam Relevance
Understanding the ERP test is crucial for GS Paper II (Polity) as it illustrates how the judiciary balances individual religious freedoms with collective denominational rights. The case also sheds light on constitutional interpretation techniques—textual, purposive and comparative—useful for answer writing. Moreover, the discussion on horizontal provisions links directly to Articles 14, 15, 17, 23 and 24, reinforcing the concept of constitutional morality versus religious doctrine.
Way Forward
Legal scholars anticipate that the bench may either: (a) refine the ERP test to a flexible, fact‑based standard; (b) declare the test redundant, relying on the plain language of Articles 25 and 26; or (c) carve out a nuanced hierarchy where Denominational rights are subject to the social‑reform clause of Article 25(2)(b). The outcome will set a precedent for future disputes involving temple entry, gender equality, and the scope of religious freedom, making it a must‑watch development for UPSC aspirants.