Whether the ‘anti-exclusion principle’ expounded in the Sabarimala verdict can be a better alternative to the ‘essential practice’ doctrine in balancing the religious freedom with the individual’s rights. Examine. (15 Marks)

Mentor’s comment:

  • https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-warp-and-weft-of-religious-liberty/article30551695.ece
  • The article discusses the challenges faced by the SC in balancing between the religious freedom granted to an individual as well as guarding the individual against the same in some cases. The article also discusses the options with the SC. One of the options discussed is the adoption of the principle of “anti-exclusion”.
  • In the intro, briefly explain the essential practice doctrine in the context of religious freedom in India.
  • In the main body explain what is “essential practice” doctrine and its utility in balancing the two freedoms granted to an individual. Besides, explain what is the “anti-exclusion principle” expounded in the Sabarimala verdict. How it is different from the essential practice doctrine. And whether it could be more effective at resolving the conflict between the individual’s liberty and his religious freedom.
  • In conclusion, you can write that both the doctrines if applied depending upon the issues involved in the case could effectively help in balancing more effectively.
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Akansha Singh
8 months ago


Deepanshu Gulyani
8 months ago


New Doc 2020-01-19 12.02.47_15.jpg
New Doc 2020-01-19 12.02.47_14.jpg
New Doc 2020-01-19 12.02.47_13.jpg
Abhi Shek
8 months ago
Unnati Chauhan
7 months ago