Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices vs. Constitutional Morality: An Evolving Constitutional Dilemma
Introduction
India’s constitutional democracy rests on a delicate balance between the right to religious freedom and the supremacy of constitutional values. The conflict between the Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices (ERP) and the principle of Constitutional Morality has become a focal point in judicial discourse. While the former seeks to preserve the sanctity of religious beliefs and rituals, the latter promotes fundamental rights and constitutional values such as equality, dignity, and justice. As the judiciary confronts issues involving faith and constitutional ethics, the tension between these two doctrines highlights the evolving nature of Indian secularism.
I. Understanding the Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices (ERP)
The Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices was introduced by the Supreme Court of India in the 1954 Shirur Mutt case (The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt). The Court held that what constitutes an essential part of a religion should be determined by the doctrines of that religion itself.
This doctrine empowers the judiciary to differentiate between essential and non-essential practices of a religion. Essential practices are those without which a religion would lose its fundamental character and are therefore protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution. Non-essential or secular practices can be regulated by the State.
Key Features of ERP Doctrine:
- Draws a line between religious beliefs and secular activities.
- Protects only the core tenets of religion.
- Subject to the limitations of public order, morality, and health (Article 25(1)).
However, a major criticism of this doctrine is that judges, rather than theologians or religious communities, end up deciding what is essential to a religion, thus inserting the State into the domain of faith.
II. Concept of Constitutional Morality
Constitutional Morality refers to the adherence to the values enshrined in the Constitution, such as liberty, equality, fraternity, secularism, rule of law, and justice. The doctrine gained prominence in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, which recognized the basic structure doctrine. In contemporary times, it has been increasingly invoked to counter religious or social practices that violate fundamental rights.
Constitutional Morality acts as a guiding principle for interpreting laws and balancing conflicting interests. It demands that public institutions act in accordance with the ethos and vision of the Constitution, even when that contradicts public opinion or religious sentiments.
Key Principles of Constitutional Morality:
- Upholding individual dignity and equality.
- Prioritizing constitutional values over customary or religious norms.
- Ensuring justice, non-discrimination, and liberty.
III. The Clash Between ERP and Constitutional Morality
The ERP doctrine aims to protect religious autonomy, but Constitutional Morality often requires scrutinizing such practices under the lens of fundamental rights. The tension arises when religious customs conflict with rights such as equality (Article 14), freedom from discrimination (Article 15), and personal liberty (Article 21).
This conflict has become increasingly evident in recent landmark judgments where the courts had to decide between respecting religious sentiments and upholding constitutional rights.
IV. Landmark Judgments Illustrating the Conflict
1. Sabarimala Temple Entry Case (2018) – Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
The Supreme Court ruled that the ban on entry of women aged 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. The majority held that the practice violated Article 14 (equality) and Article 25 as it discriminated against women. The court questioned whether this exclusion was truly an “essential practice” and emphasized that Constitutional Morality must override regressive religious customs.
This judgment sparked widespread public debate, with critics arguing that the court was interfering in religious matters, while supporters hailed it as a step towards gender equality.
2. Triple Talaq Case (2017) – Shayara Bano v. Union of India
The Supreme Court held that the practice of instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) was unconstitutional and arbitrary, thus violating Article 14. Although it was considered by some scholars as an essential Islamic practice, the court ruled that personal laws cannot contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
This case showcased how the court can invalidate religious practices when they conflict with constitutional values, especially concerning gender justice.
3. Decriminalization of Homosexuality (2018) – Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
In striking down Section 377 of the IPC, which criminalized homosexual acts, the Court invoked Constitutional Morality to uphold the dignity and rights of the LGBTQ+ community. While religious groups opposed the judgment on moral and religious grounds, the Court reaffirmed that individual autonomy and constitutional rights must prevail.
V. Judicial Challenges and Concerns
The application of both ERP and Constitutional Morality has posed serious jurisprudential dilemmas:
- Who determines what is essential to a religion? – Courts lack theological expertise, making it contentious for judges to make such determinations.
- Is the line between regulation and interference clear? – When courts overrule traditional practices, it raises questions about judicial overreach.
- Are all constitutional values compatible with religious freedom? – Balancing both often requires nuanced, case-by-case interpretations.
- Do such rulings create uniformity or backlash? – Progressive judgments may invite resistance from religious communities, affecting their legitimacy.
VI. The Way Forward
To resolve the clash between ERP and Constitutional Morality, several suggestions can be considered:
- Codification of essential religious practices through inclusive consultations with religious scholars, civil society, and legal experts.
- Harmonizing rights by interpreting religious freedom in a way that does not violate other fundamental rights.
- Developing consistent jurisprudence through constitution benches to avoid conflicting judgments on similar issues.
- Promoting legal literacy among religious communities to create awareness about their rights and duties under the Constitution.
- Encouraging internal reform within religious traditions to align with constitutional values, rather than relying solely on judicial intervention.
Conclusion
The tension between the Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices and Constitutional Morality reflects the broader challenges of managing diversity in a constitutional democracy. While religious freedom remains a cornerstone of Indian secularism, it cannot be an excuse for perpetuating discrimination or inequality. The courts play a crucial role in balancing respect for religious practices with the pursuit of constitutional ideals. As India progresses, this balance must be carefully maintained to ensure that faith does not become an instrument for exclusion, and that constitutional morality does not become a tool of cultural alienation. The future of Indian secularism lies in dialogue, not in confrontation—between law, faith, and justice.
