Introduction
The Indian judiciary is increasingly tasked with arbitrating the friction between the right to freedom of religion (Articles 25-28) and constitutional morality—a philosophy grounded in justice, liberty, equality, and individual dignity. In recent years, constitutional courts have progressively scrutinized entrenched faith practices to ensure they do not abrogate individual fundamental rights.
Doctrinal Interventions: Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test
Originating in the Shirur Mutt Case (1954), the Essential Religious Practices test allows courts to determine whether a contested ritual or belief is fundamentally integral to a religion. Non-essential practices are denied constitutional protection under Article 25 and subjected to tests of reasonableness, nondiscrimination, and public order.
Key Judicial Precedents
- Gender Equality and Personal Law: In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court struck down the practice of Talaq-e-biddat (instant Triple Talaq), declaring it arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21, and outside the ambit of essential religious practice.
- Subordinating Customary Morality: In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) (Sabarimala Case), the Court lifted the exclusionary ban on women of menstruating age entering the shrine. The majority held that the word 'morality' occurring in Articles 25 and 26 implies 'constitutional morality' rather than prevailing public or majoritarian morality.
Harmonising Individual Rights and Denominational Autonomy
The institutional dilemma of adjudicating religious matters prompted a larger reference in Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020). A nine-judge Constitution Bench was tasked with setting definitive standards to balance individual fundamental rights (Articles 14 and 21) against the collective autonomy of religious denominations (Article 26).
Conclusion
The judiciary plays an indispensable counter-majoritarian role by ensuring that religious freedoms do not perpetuate historical injustices. Moving forward, judicial intervention must maintain a nuanced balance between transformative constitutionalism and pluralistic respect, reaffirming that religious practices remain bounded by basic human dignity.