14 May 2026·The Hindu

Protection to religion not just for ‘essential practices’, says Centre

In this note

1. At a Glance

Centre argues constitutional protection to religion not confined to "essential religious practices" (ERP) test; wider ambit claimed under Articles 25–26 [1][2].
Arises in Sabarimala Reference, nine-judge Constitution Bench, eight years after 2018 women-entry verdict [1].
Tests core UPSC theme: judicial doctrine (ERP test) vs constitutional text — GS-II relevance on Fundamental Rights interpretation.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, opening rejoinder for Centre, told 9-judge Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant (14 May 2026 hearing) that religion's protection isn't restricted to ERP alone [2].
Mehta argued burden lies on challenger to prove practice violates public order, morality, health [2].

1950: Constitution enacted; Articles 25 (freedom of conscience, religion) and 26 (denominational rights) adopted — no "essential practices" phrase in text [2].
Post-Independence judicial creation: SC evolved ERP doctrine (Shirur Mutt case, 1954) to test which religious practices merit protection — Mehta calls this "judicial creativity," phrase absent from Constitution [2].
2018: SC 5-judge Bench (4:1) permitted entry of women of all ages into Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, applying/questioning ERP test [1].
2019–2020: Review petitions referred to larger (9-judge) Bench for reconsideration of ERP doctrine's scope, alongside related religious-freedom questions (Parsi, Dawoodi Bohra, mosque-entry issues clubbed) [1].
2026: 9-judge Bench under CJI Surya Kant conducts ~16 days hearing; Centre's rejoinder (this news item) argues against restrictive ERP reading; Bench later reserves judgment [1].

Item	Detail
Bench strength	9-judge Constitution Bench [1]
Chief Justice presiding	CJI Surya Kant [2]
Centre's counsel	Solicitor General Tushar Mehta [2]
Key Articles	Art. 25 (freedom of conscience/religion), Art. 26 (denominational management rights) [2]
Restrictive grounds under Art. 25/26	Public order, morality, health [2]
Contested judicial doctrine	"Essential Religious Practices" (ERP) test — not in constitutional text [2]
Related earlier constitutional tool cited by Centre	Article 25(2)(b) — enables opening Hindu religious institutions to all classes of Hindus (caste-context) [1]
Origin case (2018)	Sabarimala verdict permitting women's entry [1]
Status as of hearing	Arguments concluded/reserved after Centre's rejoinder; amicus curiae to be heard [1]

Legal / Constitutional

Centre seeks to shift SC away from ERP test toward a wider, text-based protection of religion, with restriction only for public order/morality/health [2].
Only Art. 25 & 26 among Fundamental Rights were given "restricted meaning" via ERP by courts, per Mehta — contrasted with expansive interpretation of other FRs [2].
Mehta stresses Arts. 25–26 are interconnected, not isolated — individual conscience linked to denominational autonomy [2].

Social

Outcome affects gender-based temple entry disputes (Sabarimala), and could extend to other faith-practice restrictions on women/marginalized groups.

Governance / Administrative

Determines extent of judicial review over religious practices vs deference to religious denominations — federal courts vs religious institutional autonomy.

Historical

ERP test traces to Shirur Mutt (1954) doctrine; this reference is opportunity for SC to revisit 70+ years of jurisprudence [2].

9-judge Bench (CJI Surya Kant) held Sabarimala Reference hearings, Day 1 onward, into 2026 [1].
April 2026: Centre argued "State cannot reform a religion out of existence" (Day 2) [1].
14 May 2026: Centre's rejoinder (SG Mehta) argued protection wider than ERP alone [2] (this article).
Bench concluded ~16 days of hearings, reserved judgment; petitioners' rejoinder called for "minimalist judicial approach to traditions" [1].

Sabarimala 2018 verdict: 5-judge Bench, 4:1 majority, allowed women of all ages entry [1].
Current Sabarimala Reference heard by 9-judge Constitution Bench [1].
CJI presiding over Sabarimala Reference: Surya Kant [2].
Solicitor General representing Union in this hearing: Tushar Mehta [2].
ERP = "Essential Religious Practices" test — phrase not found in constitutional text [2].
Restrictions on Art. 25/26 rights: public order, morality, health (explicit constitutional grounds) [2].
Article 25 = freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, propagation of religion.
Article 26 = freedom of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
Article 25(2)(b) empowers state to throw open Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes/sections of Hindus [1].
ERP doctrine judicially originated in Shirur Mutt case (1954) [2].
Sabarimala temple deity: Lord Ayyappa (Kerala).

GS-II: Indian Constitution — Fundamental Rights, judicial review, separation of powers; comparison of Constitutional provisions with judicially-evolved doctrines.
GS-II: Government policies/interventions — Centre's stance before judiciary on religious freedom.
Possible question stems: 1. "Discuss the origin and constitutional validity of the 'Essential Religious Practices' doctrine in adjudicating religious freedom disputes in India." (GS-II, 250 words) 2. "Examine the interplay between Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and the grounds of public order, morality and health as limitations on religious freedom." (GS-II) 3. "Critically analyze whether courts should determine what is 'essential' to a religion. Refer to the Sabarimala Reference." (GS-II)

Sabarimala 2018 judgment (Indian Young Lawyers Assn v. State of Kerala) — origin case of ERP controversy.
Shirur Mutt case (1954) — foundational ERP doctrine ruling.
Article 25 & 26 jurisprudence — freedom of religion vs denominational rights.
Triple Talaq / Sabarimala / Female Genital Cutting reference clubbing — related religious-freedom matters before larger benches.
Basic Structure Doctrine — parallel judicial-innovation debate (text vs interpretation).
Uniform Civil Code debate — connected to state intervention in religious personal law.
Doctrine of judicial restraint vs judicial activism — governance dimension.

Confusing Article 25 (individual right) with Article 26 (denominational/group right) — commonly mixed up in MCQs.
Assuming "essential religious practices" is a constitutional phrase — it is judge-made, not textual [2].
Mixing up 2018 Sabarimala Bench (5 judges) with current Reference Bench (9 judges).
Wrongly attributing Article 25(2)(b) to gender issues — it targets caste-based exclusion, not gender, per Centre's own submission [1].
Assuming judgment already delivered — as of this article, arguments concluded/reserved, not decided [1].