Key Facts and Data Points

  • Recent Cases (2026):
  • Thiruparankundram Deepathoon – Madras HC held that the State cannot ban a long‑standing ritual merely on security grounds.
  • Kanchipuram Varadaraja Perumal Temple – Madras HC upheld the exclusive right of the Thenkalai sect to lead hymn recitations (Adhyapaka Mirasi).
  • Landmark Supreme Court Decisions on ERP:
  • Shirur Mutt (1954) – Defined "essential" based on the religion’s own tenets.
  • Durgah Committee (1961) – Excluded superstitious accretions from protection.
  • Ananda Marga (2004) – Essentiality requires that its absence fundamentally alters the religion.
  • Shayara Bano (2017) – Triple Talaq not an essential Islamic practice.
  • Sabarimala (2018) – Even essential practices must yield to constitutional morality.

Background and Context

  • Pre‑Constitution Era: Temple entry disputes were treated as civil rights issues (e.g., Sankaralinga Nadan v. Raja Rajeswara Dorai, 1908).
  • Legislative Oversight: Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 introduced state audit of temple finances.
  • Constitutional Transition: Articles 25 & 26 (1950) guarantee freedom of religion but allow regulation for public order, health, morality.

Significance for India / Governance / Policy

  • The ERP test is the primary tool for courts to decide whether a religious practice enjoys constitutional protection.
  • It influences state regulation of temples, personal law reforms, and communal harmony.
  • Criticisms (inconsistency, judicial overreach) affect the credibility of the judiciary and can fuel political mobilisation.

Constitutional / Legal Provisions

  • Article 25 – Freedom of conscience, profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
  • Article 26 – Freedom to manage religious affairs and establish institutions.
  • Article 27 – No tax for promotion of any religion.
  • Article 28 – Freedom regarding religious instruction in educational institutions.
  • ERP Test – Judicial doctrine interpreting Articles 25‑26.

Criticisms of the ERP Jurisprudence

  • Expertise Gap: Courts may lack theological expertise.
  • Inconsistency: Divergent rulings across benches.
  • Secular Paternalism: Perceived state superiority over religious groups.
  • Implementation Hurdles: Resistance to judgments (e.g., Sabarimala).
  • Politicisation: Judicial outcomes used for electoral gains.

Suggested Reforms

  • Adopt a Principled Distance approach – intervene only when practices violate human dignity and equality.
  • Formulate clear, consistent ERP criteria (perhaps via a Law Commission recommendation).
  • Enhance constitutional literacy among temple administrators and officials.
  • Promote inter‑sect dialogue (e.g., Thenkalai vs. Vadakalai) to pre‑empt litigation.
  • Incorporate constitutional mindedness in educational curricula.

Related Mains Question

Critically analyse the Essential Religious Practices test. Has it strengthened or weakened constitutional secularism in India?

FAQs

  1. What is the ERP test? A judicial doctrine to determine if a practice is integral to a religion and thus protected under Articles 25‑26.
  2. Which constitutional provisions govern religious freedom? Articles 25, 26, 27, and 28.
  3. Significance of Sabarimala judgment (2018)? It held that essential practices cannot override constitutional morality (equality, dignity).
  4. Role of HRCE laws? They enable state oversight of temple administration, finances, and management.

Prepared for UPSC – Drishti IAS