Supreme Court’s Critique of the ERP Doctrine
The Supreme Court delivered a striking observation during the conclusion of the Sabarimala reference. Justice M.M. Sundresh described the ERP doctrine as ‘elitist’, meaning it favours organised, doctrinal religions and marginalises tribal or less‑structured faiths.
Key Developments
- Justice Sundresh’s remark that ERP is elitist was echoed by Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar, who argued the test creates a hierarchy of religious practices.
- Parmeshwar highlighted that Article 25 and Article 26 protect even non‑doctrinal tribal religions, which ERP often fails to shield.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna cautioned that ERP may be used as an aid but cannot serve as a decisive test to strike down legislation.
- Parmeshwar cited former CJI Dipak Misra’s observation that Sabarimala lacks distinctiveness, questioning the reliance on ‘novelty’ or ‘textual authority’ for constitutional protection.
Important Facts
The hearing spanned 16 days and covered a broad spectrum of religious‑rights issues, including:
- Temple entry for women (Sabarimala)
- Mosque entry rights
- Parsi women’s religious identity
- Female genital mutilation
- Excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community
Parmeshwar argued that the Constitution protects a person’s spiritual pursuit under Article 21. By stripping a practice of protection through ERP, the state effectively dents that identity.
Exam Relevance
Understanding the ERP doctrine is crucial for GS‑2 (Polity) as it touches upon:
- Interpretation of fundamental rights