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.
