Balancing Faith, Dignity and Constitutional Rights: The Sabarimala Review and Religious Freedom
Table of Contents
Relevance: GS Paper II – Polity and Governance (Fundamental Rights, Supreme Court Judgments, Religious Freedom, Constitutional Morality)
For Prelims:
- Sabarimala Temple, Lord Ayyappa, Rule 3(b) Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Rules 1965, Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018), Articles 14, 25, and 26, Freedom of Religion, Religious Denomination, Essential Religious Practices Doctrine, Supreme Court Review Petition, Constitutional Morality, Gender Equality, Fundamental Rights, Secularism.
For Mains:
- Sabarimala Temple Entry Case, Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala (2018), Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine, Anti-Exclusion Test, Constitutional Morality, Religious Autonomy vs Fundamental Rights, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s Anti-Exclusion Test, Justice Indu Malhotra’s Dissent, Freedom of Religion Jurisprudence, Constitutional Supremacy, Gender Justice, Religious Freedom vs Equality, Articles 14, 25 and 26, Religious Denomination, Secular Constitutional Framework.
Why in News?
The Supreme Court of India is set to hear the final arguments in the review petitions related to the Sabarimala Temple entry case (Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala, 2018).
The review will determine the constitutional principles governing the balance between:
- Religious autonomy
- Gender equality
- Individual dignity
- Constitutional morality
The outcome will not only affect the Sabarimala dispute but also influence other religious freedom cases involving exclusion and religious practices.
Background of the Sabarimala Case
Traditional Practice
The Sabarimala Temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, traditionally barred women aged 10 to 50 years from entering the temple.
This restriction was based on:
- The celibate nature of Lord Ayyappa (Naishtika Brahmachari)
- Long-standing religious customs
- Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965
Supreme Court Judgment (2018)
In September 2018, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered its verdict.
Majority Judgment (4:1)
The Court ruled that:
- Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination.
- The exclusion of women violated their fundamental right to freedom of religion.
- Rule 3(b) was unconstitutional.
- Gender discrimination in temple entry violates constitutional guarantees.
The majority emphasized:
- Equality (Article 14)
- Freedom of religion (Article 25)
- Non-discrimination
- Constitutional supremacy
Dissenting Opinion – Justice Indu Malhotra
Justice Indu Malhotra presented a contrasting view.
Key arguments:
- Religious practices must be harmonised with constitutional rights.
- Courts should respect long-standing religious customs.
- The exclusion of women was an essential religious practice.
- Courts should not interfere in matters of faith unless there is clear constitutional violation.
Her dissent highlighted the importance of religious autonomy.
Constitutional Framework: Freedom of Religion
The Constitution guarantees religious freedom under:
- Article 25 – Freedom of religion to individuals
- Article 26 – Rights of religious denominations
However, these rights are subject to:
- Public order
- Morality
- Health
- Other fundamental rights such as equality and dignity
This creates tension between:
- Religious autonomy
- Individual fundamental rights
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine
Meaning
The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test allows courts to decide whether a religious practice is essential to a religion.
If essential → Constitution protects it
If not essential → State can regulate or restrict it
Origin of ERP Doctrine
Established in the case:
Sastri Yagnapurushadji vs Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya
The Court interpreted religious texts to determine essential religious practices.
Criticism of ERP Doctrine
The ERP doctrine has several limitations:
- Courts are forced to interpret religious doctrines.
- Judges become arbiters of theology.
- Lack of objective criteria.
- It does not resolve conflicts between religious practices and human dignity.
It risks allowing exclusionary practices to continue.
Anti-Exclusion Test: A New Constitutional Approach
To overcome the limitations of ERP doctrine, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud proposed the Anti-Exclusion Test.
Meaning of Anti-Exclusion Test
The Anti-Exclusion Test focuses on constitutional impact rather than religious essentiality.
It asks:
- Does the practice exclude individuals?
- Does exclusion violate dignity?
- Does exclusion deny equal access?
If yes → The practice is unconstitutional.
Key Features
- Religious groups retain autonomy in matters of doctrine.
- Courts do not decide what is essential to religion.
- Courts intervene only when exclusion violates constitutional rights.
This shifts focus from: Essentiality of practice → Constitutional impact of practice.
Key Difference: ERP vs Anti-Exclusion Test
| Essential Religious Practices Test | Anti-Exclusion Test |
| Focus on religious essentiality | Focus on constitutional impact |
| Courts interpret religious doctrine | Courts assess constitutional harm |
| Protects essential religious practices | Protects dignity and equality |
| Theological approach | Constitutional approach |
Broader Constitutional Implications
The principles developed in the Sabarimala case will affect other cases involving religious exclusion, such as:
- Excommunication practices in Dawoodi Bohra community
- Rights of Parsi women marrying outside religion
- Access to religious institutions
These cases raise questions about:
- Religious autonomy
- Equality
- Individual dignity
Religion and Constitutional Morality
The Indian Constitution follows principled secularism.
This means:
- Religion is protected.
- But religious practices must comply with constitutional values.
Key constitutional principles include:
- Equality
- Liberty
- Dignity
- Non-discrimination
The Constitution prioritizes individual dignity over discriminatory customs.
Constitutional Balance: Faith vs Fundamental Rights
The Constitution recognizes both:
- Rights of religious communities
- Rights of individuals
However, when religious practices violate dignity or equality, constitutional values prevail.
The individual remains the basic unit of constitutional protection.
Significance of the Sabarimala Review
- Scope of religious freedom
- Limits of religious autonomy
- Role of courts in religious matters
- Balance between faith and fundamental rights
Conclusion
The Sabarimala case represents a major constitutional debate between religious freedom and individual rights.
The essential religious practices doctrine has faced criticism for allowing courts to interpret theology. The anti-exclusion test offers a more constitutional approach by focusing on dignity and equality.
The Supreme Court’s final ruling will define how India balances religious autonomy with constitutional morality, ensuring that faith remains protected while preventing discrimination.
CARE MCQ
Q. ‘Mission Indradhanush’ launched by the Government of India pertains to (2016)
- The Supreme Court held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa constitute a separate religious denomination.
- The Essential Religious Practices doctrine allows courts to determine essential religious practices.
- The Anti-Exclusion Test focuses on dignity and equality rather than religious essentiality.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
A. 1 and 2 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Answer: B
Explanation
Statement 1 is Incorrect
The Court held that Ayyappa devotees are not a separate religious denomination.
Statement 2 is Correct
ERP doctrine allows courts to determine essential religious practices.
Statement 3 is Correct
Anti-Exclusion Test focuses on dignity and equality.
