Anthropology of Essential Religious Practice Doctrine

Abstract

Indian Civilisation has guaranteed religious tolerance since time immemorial, still, the malleability of such human values often becomes a tool for manipulation. Thus, the protection of such human values and beliefs becomes imperative. Unprecedented opinions of the Supreme Court led to the emergence of Essential Religious Doctrine in the Shirur Mutt case1 deciding state intervention for religious endowments, and resurrection of the same was accorded in the Sabarimala case2 regarding the practice of restricting women entry in the Sabarimala temple. Essential Religious Practice (ERP) Doctrine segmented religion into two parts: Essential and Non- Essential practices. ERP Doctrine only gives protection to essential religious practices. It redefines the scope of state intervention for performing a gatekeeping function3 in the policies concerning religious matters by adding an extra restriction to Article 25 (Right to Religion)4 which is already subjected to public order and morality5. The non-essential characters have been derived in both the above- mentioned practices for religious endowments, matrimonial affairs and restrictions on women entering the temple, etc. 1 Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [1954] AIR 282. 2 Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala (2019) 11 SCC 1: [2018] 8 SCJ 609. 3 Tarunabh Khaitan, ‘The Essential Practices Test and Freedom of Religion – Notes on Sabarimala’ (Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy, 29 July 2018) 4 Constitution of India 1950 5 Aftab Alam, ‘The Idea of Secularism and the Supreme Court of India’ (2010) Pluralism Working Paper Series No. 5, 21-22 1 Volume 2 – Issue 1 Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Legal Research ISSN: 2582-9947