Protection to religion not just for ‘essential practices’, says Centre
Enough grounded facts (Tier 4 + article + SCO report). Writing 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 [S1][S2].
- Arises in Sabarimala Reference, nine-judge Constitution Bench, eight years after 2018 women-entry verdict [S1].
- Tests core UPSC theme: judicial doctrine (ERP test) vs constitutional text — GS-II relevance on Fundamental Rights interpretation.
2. Why in the News
- 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 [S2].
- Mehta argued burden lies on challenger to prove practice violates public order, morality, health [S2].
3. Background & Evolution
- 1950: Constitution enacted; Articles 25 (freedom of conscience, religion) and 26 (denominational rights) adopted — no "essential practices" phrase in text [S2].
- 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 [S2].
- 2018: SC 5-judge Bench (4:1) permitted entry of women of all ages into Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, applying/questioning ERP test [S1].
- 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) [S1].
- 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 [S1].
4. Core Static Facts
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Bench strength | 9-judge Constitution Bench [S1] |
| Chief Justice presiding | CJI Surya Kant [S2] |
| Centre's counsel | Solicitor General Tushar Mehta [S2] |
| Key Articles | Art. 25 (freedom of conscience/religion), Art. 26 (denominational management rights) [S2] |
| Restrictive grounds under Art. 25/26 | Public order, morality, health [S2] |
| Contested judicial doctrine | "Essential Religious Practices" (ERP) test — not in constitutional text [S2] |
| Related earlier constitutional tool cited by Centre | Article 25(2)(b) — enables opening Hindu religious institutions to all classes of Hindus (caste-context) [S1] |
| Origin case (2018) | Sabarimala verdict permitting women's entry [S1] |
| Status as of hearing | Arguments concluded/reserved after Centre's rejoinder; amicus curiae to be heard [S1] |
5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis
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 [S2]. - Only Art. 25 & 26 among Fundamental Rights were given "restricted meaning" via ERP by courts, per Mehta — contrasted with expansive interpretation of other FRs [S2]. - Mehta stresses Arts. 25–26 are interconnected, not isolated — individual conscience linked to denominational autonomy [S2].
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 [S2].
6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)
- 9-judge Bench (CJI Surya Kant) held Sabarimala Reference hearings, Day 1 onward, into 2026 [S1].
- April 2026: Centre argued "State cannot reform a religion out of existence" (Day 2) [S1].
- 14 May 2026: Centre's rejoinder (SG Mehta) argued protection wider than ERP alone [S2] (this article).
- Bench concluded ~16 days of hearings, reserved judgment; petitioners' rejoinder called for "minimalist judicial approach to traditions" [S1].
7. Prelims Hooks
- Sabarimala 2018 verdict: 5-judge Bench, 4:1 majority, allowed women of all ages entry [S1].
- Current Sabarimala Reference heard by 9-judge Constitution Bench [S1].
- CJI presiding over Sabarimala Reference: Surya Kant [S2].
- Solicitor General representing Union in this hearing: Tushar Mehta [S2].
- ERP = "Essential Religious Practices" test — phrase not found in constitutional text [S2].
- Restrictions on Art. 25/26 rights: public order, morality, health (explicit constitutional grounds) [S2].
- 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 [S1].
- ERP doctrine judicially originated in Shirur Mutt case (1954) [S2].
- Sabarimala temple deity: Lord Ayyappa (Kerala).
8. Mains Relevance
- 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)
9. Related Topics to Study Next
- 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.
10. Common Errors / Trap Areas
- 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 [S2].
- 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 [S1].
- Assuming judgment already delivered — as of this article, arguments concluded/reserved, not decided [S1].
11. Sources
- [S1] Sabarimala Reference | Day 1: Union challenges essential religious practices test — https://www.scobserver.in/reports/sabarimala-review-day-1-of-the-9-judge-constitution-bench-hearing/ — (tier: 4)
- [S2] Protection to religion not just for 'essential practices', says Centre — The Hindu — https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/2026-05-14/th_international/articleGDRFVRI5G-14585356.ece — (tier: 4)