Overview
The Supreme Court is on its twelfth day of hearing the Sabarimala case. The debate centres on the doctrine of ERP, the court’s role as a theological arbiter, and the scope of "morality" under Article 25(1).
Key Developments (as of 6 May 2026)
- The nine‑judge bench reiterated that religious practice cannot be used to exclude particular castes, calling such exclusion "not religion" (Justice B V Nagarathna).
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta warned that a secular court lacks scholarly competence to label a practice "superstition".
- Earlier judgments – Commissioner of Police v Acharya Jagadisharananda Avadhuta (2004) and Shayara Bano (2017) – provided a test: if the absence of a practice would fundamentally alter the religion’s character, it is deemed essential.
Important Judicial Precedents on ERP
1. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (1954) – Recognised the autonomy of religious denominations under Article 26(b).
2. Sri Venkataramana Devaru v State of Mysore (1958) – Shifted from "complete autonomy" to a judicial role in identifying essential practices.
3. Durgah Committee, Ajmer v Syed Hussain Ali (1961) – Distinguished genuine religious rites from "superstitious beliefs" and excluded the latter from protection.
4. Sardar Syedna Taher Saiffuddin Saheb v State of Bombay (1962) – Stressed that essential practices must be grounded in religious texts and that the legislature cannot abolish a religion entirely.
Scope of Morality under Article 25(1)
The Constitution permits restriction of religious freedom on grounds of public order, health and public morality. Debates in the Constituent Assembly (K Santhanam, 6 Dec 1948) highlighted that freedom would be limite