[Answered] Analyze the tension between religious autonomy and constitutional morality in light of increasing judicial intervention in the ‘sanctum’. Examine whether the ‘Essential Religious Practices’ doctrine remains an effective tool to ensure that religious traditions align with the foundational values of the Constitution.

Introduction

The rising judicial scrutiny of religious practices reflects India’s evolving constitutionalism, where courts increasingly reconcile ‘religious autonomy’ with ‘constitutional morality’ to ensure faith-based traditions do not erode equality, dignity, and individual liberty.

Judicial Entry into the ‘Sanctum’: From Principled Distance to Active Constitutionalism

1. Historical Shift in Adjudicating Religious Disputes: India’s constitutional courts have transitioned from resolving ‘civil rights disputes’ to enforcing ‘constitutional guarantees’. Pre-Constitution, temple entry cases such as Sankaralinga Nadan (1908) were framed as property and access disputes. Post-1950, Articles 25 and 26 transformed worship into a fundamental right, albeit subject to public order, morality, and health, legitimising judicial intervention within religious spaces.
2. The Judiciary as the Arbiter of Faith–Rights Conflicts: The Constitution does not grant religion an ‘immunity zone’.High Courts and the Supreme Court increasingly act as guardians of individual rights within religious collectives, evident in recent Madras High Court rulings on temple rituals and denominational rights. This reflects principled secularism, not state hostility to religion.

Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine: Purpose and Evolution

1. Origins and Rationale: The ERP doctrine was judicially crafted to separate ‘core faith’ from ‘secular accretions’. First articulated in Shirur Mutt (1954), the doctrine empowered courts to determine whether a practice was essential and integral to a religion, thereby eligible for constitutional protection under Articles 25–26.
2. From Textual Essentiality to Constitutional Scrutiny: In recent jurisprudence, essentiality alone is no longer decisive. Cases such as Triple Talaq (2017), Sabarimala (2018), and Hijab (2022) reflect a shift where even essential practices may fail if they violate Articles 14, 15, or 21. The test has moved from what religion mandates to what the Constitution permits.

Constitutional Morality versus Religious Autonomy

1. Primacy of Individual Dignity: When group autonomy clashes with individual dignity, courts increasingly side with the individual. The Supreme Court in Navtej Johar (2018) and Sabarimala elevated constitutional morality—anchored in justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity—over entrenched customs, reinforcing transformative constitutionalism.
2. Recasting Articles 25 and 26: Religious freedom is not absolute but relational.
   While Article 26 protects denominational autonomy, it cannot override Article 14’s equality mandate or Article 21’s dignity principle, especially in exclusionary practices such as gender-based restrictions or caste discrimination.

Limitations and Risks of the ERP Doctrine

Judicial Overreach and ‘Judicial Clericalism’: Judges are constitutional interpreters, not theologians. Critics argue that ERP forces courts into theological determinations, risking subjectivity, inconsistency, and homogenisation of diverse religious traditions. The Law Commission (2018) also cautioned against excessive judicial intrusion into faith matters.

Social Backlash and Legitimacy Deficit: Frequent intervention in the ‘sanctum’ can provoke resistance. Debates around Uniform Civil Code and Waqf reforms illustrate how judicial mandates, if socially disconnected, may trigger polarisation and undermine voluntary reform.

Way Forward: Harmonising Faith with Constitutional Values

Beyond Essentiality: The ‘Sincerity of Belief’ Approach: Shifting focus from ‘essentiality’ to ‘harm and rights impact’. Comparative constitutionalism (Canada, South Africa) favours assessing sincerity of belief and tangible harm, allowing autonomy unless practices cause discrimination or physical harm.

Encouraging Internal Reform: Sustainable reform flows from within communities.
Judicial nudges, combined with legislative consultation and social dialogue, can align religious practices with human rights without coercive constitutionalism.

Conclusion

As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar envisioned, constitutional morality must temper social customs; yet, enduring legitimacy demands a judiciary that reforms faith with restraint, reason, and respect for India’s plural spiritual landscape.