Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Essential Religious Practices Doctrine in Sabarimala Case

Hindustan Times - India · 15 May 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance

A nine-judge Supreme Court bench questioned the 'essential religious practices' doctrine's validity in faith-based disputes, reserving judgment on its constitutional applicability post-Sabarimala verdict, impacting religious freedom jurisprudence.

Key points

Nine-judge bench reserved verdict after 16 days of hearings examining the constitutional validity of the 'essential religious practices' (ERP) doctrine in religious freedom cases.

Essential Religious Practices doctrine faced criticism for being 'elitist' by privileging certain practices over others, with amicus curiae arguing it lacks constitutional text basis.

Article 25 and 26 rights were central to debates, with arguments that ERP doctrine improperly restricts denominational autonomy protected under these constitutional provisions.

Judicial restraint was advocated by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, suggesting courts should defer to legislatures on religious reform matters to avoid theological overreach.

2018 Sabarimala verdict reference case originated from allowing women of all ages into the temple, challenging centuries-old customs and testing equality vs. religious autonomy balance.

[GS2-Polity] The case revisits the Shirur Mutt precedent (1954) where SC first articulated the ERP test, now potentially being reconsidered for contemporary constitutional governance.

Way Forward: The Court should clarify the ERP doctrine's limited role as a classificatory tool without invalidating practices, establish clearer standards for judicial review in religious matters, and balance Articles 14, 25, and 26 through a principled constitutional framework.

Key terms

Essential Religious Practices Doctrine

Judicial test originating from Shirur Mutt case (1954) to determine which religious practices are 'essential' to a faith and thus protected under Articles 25-26. Its UPSC relevance lies in ongoing debates about judicial overreach in religious matters and the balance between religious freedom and constitutional rights.

Article 25

Constitutional right guaranteeing freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health. Crucial for UPSC as it defines the State's power to regulate religious practices and implement social reforms.

Article 26

Constitutional right protecting religious denominations' autonomy to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. Important for UPSC as it tests the limits of State intervention in religious institutions and practices.

Sabarimala Temple Case

Landmark 2018 Supreme Court verdict (4:1) that allowed women of all ages to enter Kerala's Sabarimala temple, overturning a centuries-old tradition. Significant for UPSC as it continues to shape jurisprudence on gender equality vs. religious customs.