Supreme Court Hearings Sabarimala Case: ERP Doctrine, Court’s Theological Role & Morality

<h2>Overview</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala case — A constitutional dispute concerning the entry of women of certain age groups into the Sabarimala temple; central to debates on gender equality, religious freedom and the ERP doctrine (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala case</span> is in its twelfth day of hearing (May 6, 2026). The bench of nine judges is examining three core issues: the scope of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential Religious Practices (ERP) — Core beliefs and rituals that a religion cannot be stripped of without altering its fundamental character; used by courts to test the validity of religious restrictions under Articles 25‑26 (GS2: Polity)">ERP</span>, whether a civil court can act as a theological arbiter, and how “morality” under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25(1) — Constitutional provision guaranteeing freedom of conscience, religion, and propagation, subject to public order, morality and health (GS1: Constitution)">Article 25(1)</span> should be interpreted.</p> <h3>Key Developments (as of May 2026)</h3> <ul> <li>Justice <span class="key-term" data-definition="Justice B V Nagarathna — Senior judge of the Supreme Court, member of the nine‑judge bench hearing the Sabarimala case (GS2: Polity)">B V Nagarathna</span> ruled that religious practice cannot be used to exclude specific castes, calling such exclusion “not religion”.</li> <li>Solicitor General <span class="key-term" data-definition="Tushar Mehta — India’s top law officer who argued that secular courts lack scholarly competence to label a practice as superstition (GS2: Polity)">Tushar Mehta</span> contended that courts should not decide what is “superstition” because religious sensibilities differ across regions.</li> <li>The bench revisited precedents such as <em>Commissioner of Police v Acharya Jagadisharananda Avadhuta (2004)</em> and the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Shayara Bano case — 2017 Supreme Court judgment that declared instant triple talaq unconstitutional, illustrating the ERP test (GS2: Polity)">Shayara Bano</span> decision to gauge whether a practice is essential.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts & Judicial Tests</h3> <p>The ERP test asks whether the removal of a practice would fundamentally alter the religion’s character. Earlier cases – <em>Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954)</em>, <em>Sri Venkataramana Devaru v State of Mysore (1958)</em>, and <em>Durgah Committee, Ajmer v Syed Hussain Ali (1961)</em> – have shaped this doctrine. The Supreme Court has distinguished “essential” rites from “superstitious beliefs” and “extraneous accretions”.</p> <p>Article 25(1) limits religious freedom to the grounds of public order, <span class="key-term" data-definition="public morality — The prevailing societal standards of right and wrong, which can be fluid and subject to judicial interpretation (GS4: Ethics)">public morality</span>, and health. Debates continue on whether “public morality” should be read as <span class="key-term" data-definition="constitutional morality — The normative framework derived from the Constitution’s text and spirit, guiding state action on rights and duties (GS4: Ethics)">constitutional morality</span> or as a separate, mutable standard.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <ul> <li>Understanding ERP is vital for questions on <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 — Guarantees the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs, including defining essential practices (GS1: Constitution)">Article 26</span> and the balance between religious freedom and social reform.</li> <li>The case illustrates the judiciary’s role in interpreting constitutional morality versus public morality, a frequent theme in GS 4 ethics papers.</li> <li>Precedents cited (1954‑2004) provide a chronological framework for essay‑type answers on the evolution of religious‑freedom jurisprudence.</li> </ul> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>Future judgments are likely to refine the ERP test, possibly limiting the court’s theological reach and emphasizing legislative competence under Article 25(2). Aspirants should monitor how the bench reconciles gender equality with religious autonomy, as the outcome will shape policy on temple entry, caste‑based exclusions, and broader secular‑religious dynamics in India.</p>