PolitySource: The Hindu
The Role of Judiciary in Regulating Religious Practices
Monday, 16 February 2026
Read Original ArticleKey Points
Recent rulings by the Madras High Court have emphasized the judiciary’s role in balancing religious freedom with constitutional morality. The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test aims to protect core religious practices but faces criticism for inconsistency and challenges in enforcement, leading to calls for a more principled approach in resolving religious disputes.
Detailed Coverage
- Judiciary's Role: Balances religious freedom and constitutional morality.
- ERP Test: Determines essential religious practices entitled to protection under Articles 25 and 26.
- Historical Context: Civil rights era marked early religious disputes as civil issues.
- Legislative Oversight: Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1927 began auditing temple funds.
- Constitutional Rights: Articles 25 and 26 allow freedom to practice religion, subject to public order.
- Shirur Mutt Case (1954): Essentiality based on religious tenets.
- Durgah Committee Case (1961): Superstitions not protected under the Constitution.
- Ananda Marga Case (2004): Essential practices must fundamentally alter the religion.
- Shayara Bano Case (2017): Triple Talaq deemed non-essential in Islam.
- Sabarimala Case (2018): Essential practices cannot violate constitutional morality.
- Thiruparankundram Ruling (2026): State cannot ban rituals to avoid communal tension.
- Kanchipuram Case (2026): Denominational rights upheld in hymn recitations.
- Criticisms: Judicial expertise gap and inconsistency in ERP determinations.
- Reforms Suggested: Principled distance and administrative training for temple management.
- Conclusion: Constitution refines rather than replaces faith, protecting spiritual essence.
Polity