Nine-judge bench examines scope of Articles 25 and 26; questions extent of judicial review over religious practices
The Supreme Court, hearing the Sabarimala reference, engaged in a detailed debate on the Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test, the scope of denominational rights, and the extent of the State’s power to reform religious practices.
The matter arises from the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, where a Constitution Bench struck down the exclusion of women of a certain age group from temple entry, holding the practice unconstitutional.
Subsequently, a batch of review petitions led to a reference to a nine-judge Constitution Bench to examine broader constitutional questions on religious freedom and equality, beyond the specific issue of temple entry.
A nine-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, along with Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, is hearing the reference.
The Bench clarified that it is not reviewing the 2018 verdict but is instead addressing larger constitutional questions concerning religious practices and rights.
The central issues include:
- Whether courts should apply the Essential Religious Practice test to determine what constitutes protected religious practice
- The extent of denominational autonomy under Article 26
- The scope of State intervention under Article 25(2)(b) for social reform
- The balance between individual rights (Article 25) and group rights (Article 26)
During the hearing, the Court examined the origins and evolution of the ERP doctrine, tracing it back to precedents such as Shirur Mutt (1954), which distinguished between religious and secular practices, and Durgah Committee (1961), which limited protection to practices that are “essential and integral.”
The Bench deliberated whether the ERP test places courts in the position of determining theological questions, raising concerns about judicial overreach into religious domains.
At the same time, the Court reiterated that it retains the power of judicial review to examine practices that may violate constitutional principles such as equality, morality, and dignity.
The judges also considered the tension between denominational rights and reform measures, with observations indicating that exclusionary practices could have broader implications for religious inclusivity.
Further, the Court reflected on the constitutional balance between religion and reform, noting that while it cannot “hollow” religion in the name of reform, it also cannot abdicate its duty to uphold fundamental rights.
Arguments before the Court highlighted competing approaches:
- One view emphasises deference to religious communities in defining their practices
- The other supports judicial scrutiny to ensure that such practices comply with constitutional guarantees
The case thus raises fundamental questions about the relationship between faith, constitutional morality, and State intervention in religious affairs.
The hearing in the Sabarimala reference is ongoing, with the Supreme Court continuing to examine complex constitutional questions that could have far-reaching implications for religious freedom jurisprudence in India.
