Why in the News

• During the Sabarimala Temple Entry Dispute review hearing, the Union government argued before the Supreme Court that all religious practices are presumed constitutionally protected unless they violate: Public order, Morality, and Health
• The Centre also questioned the judicially evolved doctrine of “Essential Religious Practices” (ERP).

What is ERP?

The ERP doctrine was evolved by the Supreme Court to determine:

• Which religious practices are “essential” to a religion
• Only such essential practices receive constitutional protection

Centre’s Criticism of ERP Doctrine

• The Centre argued:
  • The phrase “essential religious practices” does not appear in the Constitution.
  • It is a judicial innovation created through court interpretation.
• According to the Centre:
  • Articles 25 and 26 should receive broad interpretation like other Fundamental Rights.
  • Courts should avoid excessive interference in religious matters.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• Faith Beyond Rituals: Surya Kant observed:
  • One need not visit temples to be religious.
  • Even lighting a lamp in a hut can express faith.
• Hinduism as a Way of Life: Justice B. V. Nagarathna remarked:
  • Hinduism is a “way of life”
  • It is not dependent solely on rituals or temple visits

Related Case Laws

• Shirur Mutt Case
  • Origin of ERP doctrine
  • Court held religion includes essential practices
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
  • Allowed women of all ages entry into Sabarimala Temple
  • Linked exclusion to constitutional equality
• Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Case: Upheld denominational autonomy regarding excommunication