BALANCING FAITH, DIGNITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Why in the News?

• The Supreme Court has scheduled final arguments to begin on April 7, 2026, regarding the review petitions against its landmark 2018 Sabarimala verdict (Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala).
• A specialized nine-judge bench will hear these petitions to provide an authoritative determination on broader constitutional questions, similar to how larger benches have addressed complex issues involving environmental clearances and the Forest Conservation Act.
• The Court has established a strict schedule: parties supporting the review will argue from April 7–9, those opposing it from April 14–16, with final concluding submissions expected by April 22, 2026.
• The outcome is expected to clarify the “Essential Religious Practices” doctrine and will influence other pending cases, including Muslim women’s entry into mosques and the rights of Parsi women married outside their community, much like how environmental jurisprudence has evolved through landmark judgments on ex post facto environmental clearances.
• The Central Government has officially stated its support for the review petitions challenging the original 2018 decision.
• These hearings mark the revival of a process that was largely stalled since early 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Opinion, Dissent and Turning Point

• The judgment was delivered by a 4:1 majority.
• Majority opinions: CJI Dipak Misra (with Justice A.M. Khanwilkar concurring), and separate concurring opinions by Justices Rohinton Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud.
• Sole dissent: Justice Indu Malhotra.
• Despite differing reasoning, the majority’s conclusions were uniform and categorical.

Key Findings of the Majority (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala)

• No Separate Religious Denomination: Devotees of Lord Ayyappa were not considered a distinct religious denomination.
• Violation of Women’s Rights: The exclusion of women aged 10–50 violated their fundamental right to freedom of religion.
• Invalidity of Rule 3(b): Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules, 1965, was unconstitutional and contrary to Section 3 of its parent Act, which guarantees temple entry to all classes of Hindus.

Justice Indu Malhotra’s Dissent

• Fundamental rights in a secular polity must be harmonised rather than hierarchically imposed.
• Equality principles should not override collective rights to practise religion according to faith and custom.
• The exclusion of women of a certain age was a long-standing custom.
• Such exclusion qualified as an “essential religious practice” and deserved constitutional protection.

Central Constitutional Question

• The case revolved around the doctrine of “essential religious practice” (ERP).
• The Constitution protects:

○    Individual freedom of religion.

○    Rights of religious denominations to manage their religious affairs.

• Both are subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights, including the right to a pollution free environment as recognized in environmental jurisprudence.

The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test – Judicial Approach

• Courts examine whether a disputed practice is “essential” to a religion.
• This places the judiciary in a position of theological evaluation, similar to how courts assess environmental impact assessment requirements under the EIA Notification.
• It determines:

○    When state intervention is permissible.

○    Which practices qualify for constitutional protection.

Illustration from Precedent

• In Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya, CJI P.B. Gajendragadkar interpreted Hindu texts to decide what was essential to the Swaminarayan sect.
• The Court made determinations without directly relying on the conscience or testimony of the followers.
• It characterised the dispute as rooted in superstition and misunderstanding.

Critique of the ERP Test

• Courts acting as moral arbiters on religion undermine secularism, much like how retrospective environmental clearances or ex post facto approvals undermine environmental democracy.
• The ERP test forces judges to adopt a “religious mantle” and enter doctrinal debates.
• It requires factual findings without full evidentiary procedures (oral evidence, cross-examination), similar to challenges faced in post facto environmental clearances.
• It lacks clarity on resolving conflicts where:

○ A practice is deemed essential, but

○    It violates dignity, equality, or other constitutional values, akin to how the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle guide environmental decisions.

The Turning Point

• Justice Chandrachud emphasised that allowing religious communities to define their essential practices preserves autonomy and strengthens constitutional liberalism.
• The case highlights the urgent need to rethink or move beyond the ERP doctrine, just as the Vanashakti judgment prompted reconsideration of ex-post environmental clearances.
• It marks a broader constitutional debate: How should courts balance individual dignity with collective religious autonomy?

On an “Anti-Exclusion Test”

• Justice D. Y. Chandrachud suggested an “anti-exclusion test” as an alternative to the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine.
• The test seeks to balance religious autonomy with constitutional morality.
• It gives due deference to religious groups to define their own doctrines and tenets.

Core Principle of the Anti-Exclusion Test

• Religious communities may determine their internal practices.
• However, if a practice:

○ Excludes individuals in a way that impairs their dignity, or

○ Restricts access to basic goods (such as worship or equal participation),

• Then, freedom of religion must yield to the overarching values of a liberal Constitution.

Shift in Constitutional Emphasis

• The focus moves from asking: “Is this practice essential to religion?”
• To asking: “Does this practice violate dignity, equality, or access to fundamental rights?”
• This reframes judicial scrutiny in constitutional, not theological, terms, similar to how coastal regulation zone regulations prioritize constitutional environmental protections over developmental claims.

Doctrinal Challenges

• The test is not free from complexity.
• Determining whether exclusion impairs dignity or access requires examining:

○    The meaning and purpose of the practice.

• Such analysis cannot occur in isolation from religious context.
• Judicial inquiry may still indirectly influence the normative content of faith.

Key Distinction from the ERP Doctrine

• The ERP test requires courts to decide what is theologically essential.
• The anti-exclusion test grounds the inquiry in:

○ Constitutional values (dignity, equality, liberty),

○    Rather than religious orthodoxy.

• The judiciary avoids adopting a “religious mantle” and instead acts as a guardian of constitutional morality.

Broader Constitutional Significance

• The anti-exclusion test attempts to:

○    Protect religious autonomy,

○    While ensuring that exclusionary practices do not undermine the liberal democratic framework.

• It represents a possible turning point in reconciling:

○    Communitarian religious rights, and

○    Individual fundamental rights.

Core Difference Between ERP and Anti-Exclusion Test

• Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test:

○    Asks whether a practice is essential to a religion.

○    Constitutional protection depends on judicial determination of theological centrality.

• Anti-Exclusion Test:

○ Does not question theological essentiality.

○    Examines whether the consequences of a practice violate constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and equal protection.

Starting Presumption Under the Anti-Exclusion Test

• Accepts religious groups’ autonomy to define their own doctrines and tenets.
• Judicial intervention occurs only when:

○    A practice leads to systematic exclusion, and

○    Such exclusion denies individuals access to spaces, benefits, or institutions essential for a life of dignity.

Broader Constitutional Significance

• The nine-judge Bench’s consideration will shape the interpretation of India’s religious freedom clauses.
• Its ruling will impact not only the Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala dispute but also other controversies, such as:

○    The rights of members of the Dawoodi Bohra community facing excommunication.

○    The rights of Parsis women who marry outside the faith yet seek to continue practising Zoroastrianism.

Core Difference Between ERP and Anti-Exclusion Test

• Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test:

○        Asks whether a practice is essential to a religion.

○        Constitutional protection depends on judicial determination of theological centrality.

•     Anti-Exclusion Test:

○     Does not question theological essentiality.

○        Examines whether the consequences of a practice violate constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and equal protection.

Starting Presumption Under the Anti-Exclusion Test

•     Accepts religious groups’ autonomy to define their own doctrines and tenets.
•     Judicial intervention occurs only when:

○        A practice leads to systematic exclusion, and

○        Such exclusion denies individuals access to spaces, benefits, or institutions essential for a life of dignity.

Broader Constitutional Significance

•     The nine-judge Bench’s consideration will shape the interpretation of India’s religious freedom clauses.
•     Its ruling will impact not only the Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala dispute but also other controversies, such as:

○        The rights of members of the Dawoodi Bohra community facing excommunication.

○        The rights of Parsis women who marry outside the faith yet seek to continue practising Zoroastrianism.

Religion and Social Life in India

•     The framers of the Constitution recognised that religion and social life in India are deeply intertwined.
•     Courts cannot remain indifferent to the real-world consequences of religious practices.
•     While faith must remain autonomous in its spiritual domain, its outward exercise must align with constitutional commitments to equality and equal moral membership.

Centrality of the Individual

•     The Constitution treats the individual as the fundamental unit of concern.
•     Communitarian claims cannot override an individual’s right to access civic spaces and institutions.
•     By placing dignity at the centre of analysis, the anti-exclusion test:

○        Protects belief,

○        Prevents discrimination justified in the name of religion,

○        Advances the transformative vision of the Constitution.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/balancing-faith-dignity-and-constitutional-rights/article70676047.ece

Mains question

Critically examine the limitations of the Essential Religious Practices doctrine and analyse how the anti-exclusion test can better reconcile religious autonomy with constitutional values of dignity, equality, and individual rights in India.