<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-t
Loading page, please wait…