Supreme Court ने Sabarimala केस में Essential Religious Practices पर विचार किया – Article 25 और 26 के निहितार्थ

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The Supreme Court is on its twelfth day of hearing the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Sabarimala case – A landmark litigation challenging the ban on women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala temple, raising questions of religious freedom and gender equality (GS2: Polity)">Sabarimala case</span>. The debate centres on the doctrine of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Essential Religious Practices (ERP) – Core beliefs and rituals that form the identity of a religion; only these are protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution (GS2: Polity)">ERP</span>, the court’s role as a theological arbiter, and the scope of "morality" under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 25 – Constitutional provision guaranteeing freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health (GS2: Polity)">Article 25</span>(1).</p> <h3>Key Developments (as of 6 May 2026)</h3> <ul> <li>The nine‑judge bench reiterated that religious practice cannot be used to exclude particular castes, calling such exclusion "not religion" (Justice B V Nagarathna).</li> <li>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta warned that a secular court lacks scholarly competence to label a practice "superstition".</li> <li>Earlier judgments – <i>Commissioner of Police v Acharya Jagadisharananda Avadhuta (2004)</i> and <i>Shayara Bano (2017)</i> – provided a test: if the absence of a practice would fundamentally alter the religion’s character, it is deemed essential.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Judicial Precedents on ERP</h3> <p>1. <i>Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (1954)</i> – Recognised the autonomy of religious denominations under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 26 – Guarantees the right of every religious denomination to manage its own affairs, including the determination of essential practices (GS2: Polity)">Article 26</span>(b).<br> 2. <i>Sri Venkataramana Devaru v State of Mysore (1958)</i> – Shifted from "complete autonomy" to a judicial role in identifying essential practices.<br> 3. <i>Durgah Committee, Ajmer v Syed Hussain Ali (1961)</i> – Distinguished genuine religious rites from "superstitious beliefs" and excluded the latter from protection.<br> 4. <i>Sardar Syedna Taher Saiffuddin Saheb v State of Bombay (1962)</i> – Stressed that essential practices must be grounded in religious texts and that the legislature cannot abolish a religion entirely.</p> <h3>Scope of Morality under Article 25(1)</h3> <p>The Constitution permits restriction of religious freedom on grounds of public order, health and <span class="key-term" data-definition="public morality – The prevailing societal standards of right and wrong, which can be fluid and subject to political debate (GS2: Polity)">public morality</span>. Debates in the Constituent Assembly (K Santhanam, 6 Dec 1948) highlighted that freedom would be limite