Judicial Oversight of Religious Practices in India | 16 Feb 2026

Source: TH 

Why in News?

Rulings of the Madras High Court in the Thiruparankundram Deepathoon dispute and the case concerning the Thenkalai sect’s right to recite hymns at the Kanchipuram Varadaraja Perumal Temple have brought renewed attention to the judiciary’s role in religious matters.  

• These cases show the growing role of constitutional courts in religious disputes, using the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test to assess contested customs. 

How have Religious Disputes Evolved in India?

• Civil Rights Era: Over 100 years ago, temple entry disputes were treated as civil rights issues.  
  • In Sankaralinga Nadan v. Raja Rajeswara Dorai (1908), the Privy Council in London decided whether the Nadar community had the right to enter the Kamudhi temple, reflecting broader struggles for access and co-worship within civil law. 
• Legislative Oversight: In 1927, the Madras Presidency introduced the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, which began the process of auditing temple funds and setting up local committees, establishing the Presidency government’s supervisory role. 
• Constitutional Transition: With the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, Articles 25 and 26 introduced the right to practice religion.  
  • However, these rights were made subject to public order, health, and morality, allowing the state to intervene when practices offended the public conscience.

How has Judicial Interpretation of Essential Religious Practices Evolved in India?

• Essential Religious Practice (ERP) Test: It is a legal doctrine used by the Indian judiciary to determine which religious practices are "essential" to a faith and, therefore, entitled to constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26. 
  • If a practice is found to be "essentially integral" to the religion (like the reading of the Guru Granth Sahib in Sikhism), it is protected. The State cannot easily regulate or ban it. 
  • If a practice is social, economic, or commercial in nature, even if associated with religion, it is deemed "secular." The State has the power to regulate these for social reform. 
• Evolution: 
  • Shirur Mutt Case (1954): The Supreme Court of India established that what is "essential" must be decided based on the tenets of the religion itself. 
  • Durgah Committee Case (1961): The SC ruled that superstitious beliefs or "unessential accretions" are not protected by the Constitution. 
    • The SC ruled that protection under Article 26 is confined only to such religious practices as are an essential and integral part of the religion. 
  • Ananda Marga Case (2004): The SC ruled that a practice is essential only if its absence fundamentally alters the religion. 
  • Shayara Bano Case (2017):  The SC held that Triple Talaq is not an essential practice of Islam.  
    • It stated that a practice that is merely "permitted" but not "mandatory" cannot be an essential religious practice. 
  • Sabarimala Case (2018): The court ruled that even "essential" practices cannot be protected if they violate Constitutional Morality (equality, dignity, and liberty). 
  • Thiruparankundram Deepathoon Ruling (2026): The Madras High Court ruled that the State administration cannot ban a long-standing religious ritual simply to avoid potential communal tension. 
    • It ruled that "the administration must facilitate rituals rather than use security as an excuse to block them. 
  • Kanchipuram Varadaraja Perumal Temple (2026): The Court upheld the exclusive right of the Thenkalai sect to lead hymn recitations (Adhyapaka Mirasi). 
    • It ruled that an individual's right to worship (Article 25) cannot interfere with the denominational rights and established ritual offices of a sect protected under Article 26.

What are the Criticisms of Judicial Jurisprudence on Essential Religious Practices in India?

• Judicial Expertise Gap: Courts risk intruding into theological domains where they may lack specialized expertise, leading to religiously contested outcomes. 
• ERP Inconsistency: The test often suffers from doctrinal uncertainty, with different benches arriving at divergent conclusions on what is "essential." 
• Conflict of Autonomy: Balancing Article 26 (Denominational Autonomy) with Constitutional Morality often leads to accusations of "secular paternalism (the idea that the State knows what is better for a religious group than the group itself)." 
• Implementation Hurdles: Landmark judgments (e.g., Sabarimala) often face massive local resistance, social boycotts, and institutional non-cooperation. 
  • The Executive often finds it difficult to enforce religious reforms without causing significant law-and-order issues, leading to a "dead letter" law where the court rules but the society refuses to follow. 
• The Risk of Politicization: High-profile religious rulings are frequently politicized, where judicial outcomes are used by various actors to mobilize support or deepen social divisions. 
  • Constant involvement in religious disputes can occasionally put the judiciary's image of "secular neutrality" at risk. 

What Reforms are Needed in the Judicial Approach to Religious Disputes?

• Principled Distance: The judiciary must adopt a "Principled Distance" approach (intervening only when religious practices violate the core of human dignity and equality).  
  • The 21st Law Commission (2018) emphasised “reform from within” rather than reform imposed from above, advocating changes to personal laws to remove discriminatory provisions, address gender bias, and ensure equality. 
  • Adopt clear, consistent ERP standards and focus on core principles rather than micromanaging rituals. 
• Administrative Training: Members of temple management bodies and government departments should be trained in Constitutional Literacy to ensure that administrative decisions do not infringe upon sectarian autonomy protected under Article 26. 
• Inter-sect Dialogue: Promoting regular communication between rival sects (like the Thenkalai and Vadakalai in Kanchipuram) to prevent the "polarization" that leads to decades of litigation. 
• Promoting Constitutional Mindedness: Educational curricula should foster a citizenry that values both their Freedom of Conscience and the Rule of Law, understanding that faith and the Constitution are not in conflict but in a state of mutual respect. 

Conclusion 

The entry of the Constitution into the "sanctum" does not signify the replacement of faith, but its refinement. By ensuring that religious practices are tethered to the bedrock of the Constitution, the judiciary protects the spiritual essence of religion while purging elements that undermine human dignity.