Mentor’s Comment

The review proceedings in the Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala reopen a foundational constitutional debate: whether courts should determine what is “essential” to religion or instead examine whether religious practices violate dignity and equality. The issue extends beyond the Sabarimala Temple and directly affects the architecture of religious freedom jurisprudence under the Supreme Court of India.

Why in the News?

A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India is reviewing the doctrinal basis of the 2018 Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala verdict. The Court is reconsidering whether to retain the “Essential Religious Practices” test or adopt an “anti-exclusion” framework grounded in dignity and equality. The decision will redefine the scope of Articles 14, 15, 21, 25 and 26, and clarify the limits of judicial intervention in religious practices across denominations.

What was the 2018 Sabarimala verdict?

1. The 2018 verdict in Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala was delivered by a 4:1 majority of the Supreme Court of India.
2. The Court held that the practice of excluding women aged 10-50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple was unconstitutional. 
3. The Court also struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965, which permitted the exclusion.
4. Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, holding that matters of essential religious practice should not ordinarily be subject to judicial review unless they violate public order, morality, or health.

What was the constitutional basis of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict?

1. Equality Principle (Article 14): Prohibits arbitrary exclusion based on biological characteristics.
2. Non-Discrimination (Article 15): Restricts discrimination on grounds of sex.
3. Freedom of Religion (Article 25): Protects individual right to worship.
4. Denominational Autonomy (Article 26): Protects rights of religious denominations subject to public order, morality, and health.
5. Statutory Conflict: Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 conflicted with Section 3 of the parent Act ensuring temple entry for all Hindus.

How has the ‘Essential Religious Practices’ doctrine shaped judicial review?

1. Doctrinal Origin: Developed in Shirur Mutt (1954) to determine constitutional protection.
2. Judicial Determination: Courts assess whether a practice is fundamental to religion.
3. Theological Evaluation: Judges examine scriptures and doctrines.
4. Case Illustration: In Sastri Yagnapurushadji vs Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya (1966), the Court interpreted Hindu doctrine to decide sect status.
5. Institutional Concern: Converts constitutional courts into arbiters of theology.

What are the limitations of the Essential Religious Practices test?

1. Doctrinal Subjectivity: Lacks clear standards for determining “essentiality.”
2. Judicial Overreach: Requires theological interpretation beyond institutional competence.
3. Procedural Constraints: Constitutional courts lack mechanisms for detailed fact-finding and cross-examination.
4. Dignity Conflict: Fails to address practices that may be essential yet violate individual dignity.
5. Secularism Tension: Risks compromising state neutrality in religious matters.

What is the proposed ‘Anti-Exclusion’ test and how does it alter constitutional analysis?

1. Shift in Inquiry: Examines consequences of exclusion rather than essentiality.
2. Dignity Framework (Article 21): Protects equal moral membership in society.
3. Autonomy Balance: Respects religious autonomy unless exclusion impairs dignity or access to basic goods.
4. Constitutional Morality: Prioritizes transformative constitutional values.
5. Non-Theological Review: Grounds judicial scrutiny in constitutional standards, not doctrine.

How does the review affect the broader architecture of religious freedom?

1. Doctrinal Recalibration: May redefine relationship between Articles 25 and 26.
2. Gender Justice Expansion: Impacts disputes involving women’s access to religious institutions.
3. Community Governance: Influences cases involving excommunication (e.g., Dawoodi Bohra issue).
4. Marriage and Faith: Affects questions like inter-faith marriage consequences in certain communities.
5. Institutional Accountability: Clarifies limits of court intervention in religious affairs.

Does the Constitution prioritize community autonomy or individual dignity?

1. Individual as Basic Unit: Constitution treats individuals as primary rights-holders.
2. Limited Communitarianism: Collective rights subject to fundamental rights.
3. Transformative Vision: Constitution aims to reform discriminatory traditions.
4. Public Order, Morality, Health: Explicit constitutional limitations on religious freedom.

Conclusion

The Sabarimala review marks a doctrinal turning point in religious freedom jurisprudence. A shift from theological essentiality to dignity-based scrutiny redefines the limits of judicial intervention. The outcome will determine whether constitutional courts function as arbiters of faith or guardians of equal moral membership.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now