Supreme Court Deliberates on Essential Religious Practice Test in Sabarimala Case

<h2>Overview</h2> <p>The nine‑judge bench of the <strong>Supreme Court of India</strong> is wrestling with the applicability of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test — a judicial test to determine whether a religious practice is essential and integral to a religion, thereby protected under Article 26 (GS2: Polity)">Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test</span> in the ongoing <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala reference — a pending nine‑judge bench case concerning entry of women into the Sabarimala temple, raising questions on religious freedom (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala reference</span>. The debate revives doctrines from the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Shirur Mutt judgment (1954) — Supreme Court decision distinguishing secular from religious practices, laying groundwork for ERP analysis (GS2: Polity)">Shirur Mutt judgment</span> and the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Dargah Committee judgment (1961) — introduced the ERP test, limiting protection to practices that are essential and integral (GS2: Polity)">Dargah Committee judgment</span>, and pits individual religious rights under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> against collective rights in <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 of the Indian Constitution — confers the right to manage religious affairs, including establishing institutions and owning property, for any religious denomination (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Justice <strong>BV Nagarathna</strong> 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.</li> <li>Justice <strong>Ahsanuddin Amanullah</strong> countered that the Court must first make a prima‑facie determination of whether a practice is religious, implying a case‑by‑case threshold.</li> <li>Senior Advocate <strong>V Giri</strong> maintained that worship rights under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>(1)(a) must align with the essential characteristics protected by <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 of the Indian Constitution — confers the right to manage religious affairs, including establishing institutions and owning property, for any religious denomination (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>.</li> <li>Senior Advocate <strong>Gopal Sankaranarayanan</strong> advocated for discarding the ERP test altogether, emphasizing that the Constitution’s language is clear and that any restriction should arise from the <span class="key-term" data-definition="horizontal provisions — provisions of Part III of the Constitution that apply to all citizens, such as equality and prohibition of untouchability (GS2: Polity)">horizontal provisions</span> like Articles 15(2), 17, 23 and 24.</li> <li>Debate intensified over whether <span class="key-term" data-definition="Denominational rights — rights of a religious denomination to regulate its own affairs without external interference, a concept central to Article 26 (GS2: Polity)">Denominational rights</span> under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 of the Indian Constitution — confers the right to manage religious affairs, including establishing institutions and owning property, for any religious denomination (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>(b) are subject to the social‑reform clause of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>(2)(b).</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>The bench comprises Chief Justice <strong>Surya Kant</strong> and eight other judges, including Justices <strong>MM Sundresh</strong>, <strong>Aravind Kumar</strong>, <strong>Augustine George Masih</strong>, <strong>Prasanna B Varale</strong>, <strong>R Mahadevan</strong> and <strong>Joymalya Bagchi</strong>. Arguments presented today focused on: (i) the necessity of a threshold test to label a practice as religious; (ii) the interplay between <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span> and <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 of the Indian Constitution — confers the right to manage religious affairs, including establishing institutions and owning property, for any religious denomination (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>; and (iii) whether the ERP test should be retained, modified, or abandoned.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>Understanding the ERP test is crucial for <strong>GS Paper II (Polity)</strong> 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 <span class="key-term" data-definition="horizontal provisions — provisions of Part III of the Constitution that apply to all citizens, such as equality and prohibition of untouchability (GS2: Polity)">horizontal provisions</span> links directly to Articles 14, 15, 17, 23 and 24, reinforcing the concept of constitutional morality versus religious doctrine.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>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 <span class="key-term" data-definition="Denominational rights — rights of a religious denomination to regulate its own affairs without external interference, a concept central to Article 26 (GS2: Polity)">Denominational rights</span> are subject to the social‑reform clause of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>(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.</p>