Gayatri M Nambiar, LL.B., Symbiosis Law School, Pune
ABSTRACT
Religion is an indispensable part of human existence.1 The doctrine of Essential Religious Practices, in recent times, grants protection to practices or ideas that the judiciary has determined to be “essential” to a religion. The Supreme Court of India has made an effort to reform religion by restricting the extent of religious freedom with the implementation and frequent use of the essentiality test. This means that the Courts determine which religious practices are mandatory and which ones are not. However, the Courts have been inconsistent in its application of the essentiality test, gravely affecting religious freedom by frequently altering the procedure for assessing essentiality. This paper discusses the evolution of the ERP test, which has led to lack of objectivity, judicial overreach, and extensive rationalisation of religion by the judiciary. It also examines an array of judgements that illustrate how the essentiality test has had an adverse impact on religious freedom. The paper also explores the question of whether ERP stands the test of time or it has led to state/judicial intervention in religion and if it can still be considered a viable framework for protecting religious freedom in India.
Keywords: Religion, Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test, Religious Freedom, Article 25, Article 26.
Comments