The doctrine of essential religious practices has been seen as a necessary evil. Discuss the doctrine in light of the recent judgements
In news – Why Bombay HC said use of loudspeakers is not essential to religion
The doctrine of essential religious practices (ERP) has been a contentious issue in the realm of constitutional law, particularly with regard to the freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. This doctrine has been perceived as a necessary evil, as it attempts to strike a balance between the State’s regulatory powers and the individual’s right to freedom of religion.
Recent judgments have shed new light on the ERP doctrine, necessitating a re-examination of its implications. The doctrine, as articulated in the Shirur Mutt case (1954), holds that only those practices that are essential to the religion can be protected under Article 25. This implies that non-essential practices can be regulated or restricted by the State.
The Supreme Court’s verdict in the Sabarimala Temple Entry case (2018) highlighted the complexities surrounding the ERP doctrine. The Court held that the prohibition on women’s entry into the temple was not an essential practice, and therefore, could not be protected under Article 25. This judgment underscored the importance of contextualizing religious practices within the broader framework of constitutional values, such as equality and non-discrimination.
However, the subsequent review petition in the Sabarimala case (2020) exposed the challenges in applying the ERP doctrine. The Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench highlighted the need for a more nuanced understanding of essentiality in the context of religious practices.
The ERP doctrine has also been scrutinized in the context of the Hijab controversy. The Karnataka High Court’s judgment (2022) held that wearing the hijab was not an essential practice in Islam, and therefore, could be restricted in educational institutions. This verdict sparked debates about the limitations of the ERP doctrine in accommodating diverse religious practices.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the doctrine of essential religious practices remains a necessary evil in the Indian constitutional framework. While it attempts to balance individual freedom with State regulation, its application has been fraught with challenges. Recent judgments have underscored the need for a more contextual and nuanced understanding of essentiality in the context of religious practices. As the judiciary continues to grapple with the complexities of the ERP doctrine, it is essential to ensure that the constitutional values of equality, non-discrimination, and freedom of religion are upheld.