This article explores the fine line between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation, highlighting how respectful engagement with traditions fosters inclusivity, while misuse can lead to exploitation and erasure. It explains the historical roots of the term, provides real-world examples from fashion, Bollywood, yoga, and festivals, and examines gray areas like wearing kimonos, bindis, or practicing yoga. The role of social media in both spreading awareness and fueling appropriation is also discussed. Legal aspects, such as the Neem Tree biopiracy case, illustrate how traditional knowledge can be protected. Finally, the article emphasizes ethical engagement—learning, giving credit, respecting sacred symbols, and collaborating—to ensure cultural exchange strengthens respect and understanding rather than perpetuating harm.

Author’s Note

This article critically examines the judicially evolved Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine and argues for its replacement with a more constitutionally consistent and rights-based approach—the doctrine of proportionality. By drawing from key judgments of the Supreme Court of India and comparative constitutional principles, the article seeks to contribute to the ongoing discourse on reconciling religious freedom with equality, dignity, and the transformative vision of the Indian Constitution.

The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author and have not been published or submitted elsewhere for publication. The author is grateful to the faculty of Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram, for their constant encouragement in pursuing academic research.

Abstract

The doctrine of essential religious practices (ERP) has long guided Indian courts in delineating the boundary between religious freedom and constitutional morality. However, landmark cases such as Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala case) and Shayara Bano v. Union of India have sparked renewed debates on the validity and relevance of ERP in a modern secular democracy. This article critically examines the origins, development, and contradictions within the ERP doctrine, arguing that it often places the judiciary in a theological role, inconsistent with constitutional secularism. Through an analysis of evolving jurisprudence and comparative perspectives, the article explores whether the time has come to replace ERP with a rights-based proportionality approach that aligns with constitutional morality and gender justice.