The Hindu Editorial Analysis
26 February 2026
Balancing faith, dignity and constitutional rights
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition, Page no.-10 )
Topic: GS2 – Indian Constitution & Polity
Introduction
The 2018 Supreme Court verdict in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (Sabarimala case) marked a constitutional watershed in the relationship between faith and fundamental rights. By allowing entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple, the Court foregrounded dignity, equality, and freedom of religion, sparking nationwide debate.
As the review petitions come up for final consideration, the broader question is not merely about temple entry, but about the architecture of India’s religious freedom jurisprudence.
Constitutional Tension: Collective Autonomy vs Individual Rights
The Constitution protects:
- Article 25 – Freedom of conscience and religion (individual right).
- Article 26 – Right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
- Article 14 – Equality before law.
- Article 21 – Dignity as part of right to life.
The conflict arises when:
- A religious practice excludes a group (e.g., women aged 10–50).
- Such exclusion is defended as essential to religious identity.
- Yet the exclusion may infringe dignity and equality.
Balancing communitarian autonomy with individual conscience lies at the heart of the dispute.
The Majority in Sabarimala (2018)
The 4:1 majority held:
- The devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination.
- The exclusion of women violated Article 25.
- Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules was unconstitutional.
- Constitutional morality must prevail over social morality.
The judgment emphasised that freedom of religion cannot legitimise gender-based exclusion.
The Dissenting View
Justice Indu Malhotra argued:
- Courts should not ordinarily interfere in matters of deep religious belief.
- Equality cannot override essential religious practices.
- Women’s exclusion was a long-standing custom.
The dissent highlighted the limits of judicial intervention in theological matters.
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine
Traditionally, the Court has used the ERP test:
- Determines whether a practice is essential to a religion.
- If essential → protected.
- If not essential → subject to regulation.
Example:
- Sastri Yagnapurushadji vs Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya (1966) — Court interpreted Hindu texts to determine essential tenets.
Limitations of ERP Doctrine
- Courts become theological arbiters.
- Judges interpret scriptures.
- Blurs line between secular and religious spheres.
- No clear solution when an “essential” practice violates dignity.
The ERP doctrine has often drawn criticism for judicial overreach.
The Anti-Exclusion Test
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud proposed an alternative:
Instead of asking:
Is this practice essential to religion?
Ask:
Does this practice exclude individuals in a manner that impairs dignity, equality, or access to basic goods?
Key Features
- Respects religious autonomy as a starting point.
- Intervenes only when exclusion undermines constitutional guarantees.
- Grounds inquiry in constitutional morality rather than theology.
This shifts the focus from theological necessity to constitutional compatibility.
A Crucial Doctrinal Distinction
ERP Test:
- Centres on essentiality to faith.
- Court defines core religious doctrine.
Anti-Exclusion Test:
- Centres on consequences for dignity and equality.
- Court examines impact on constitutional values.
The latter maintains secular adjudication grounded in rights rather than scriptural interpretation.
Broader Implications
The review hearings may affect:
- Sabarimala
- Dawoodi Bohra excommunication cases
- Parsi women’s religious rights
- Other gender-based exclusions
The outcome will shape:
- Religious freedom jurisprudence
- Scope of secularism
- Relationship between faith and constitutional morality
Transformative Constitutionalism
India’s Constitution embodies transformative aspirations:
- Social reform.
- Equal moral membership.
- Individual dignity as foundational value.
The anti-exclusion framework aligns with this transformative promise by ensuring that religious practices do not erode fundamental rights.
Conclusion
The Sabarimala review is not merely about temple entry; it is about defining the boundaries between faith and constitutional supremacy. The shift from the Essential Religious Practices doctrine to an anti-exclusion test represents a jurisprudential evolution — from theological adjudication to rights-based constitutional reasoning.
In a plural society, faith must remain autonomous in its spiritual domain. Yet when religious practices impair dignity and equality, constitutional guarantees must prevail. The enduring challenge for the judiciary is to harmonise belief with the Constitution’s commitment to equal moral citizenship.