Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine

The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine is a test that Indian courts use to decide which religious practices get the full protection of the Constitution. Under this test, a court asks: "Is this practice so central to the religion that the religion would change at its core without it?" If the answer is yes, the practice is "essential" and gets strong protection under Articles 25 and 26. If not, the government can regulate it or even stop it more easily.

Why does it exist?

The Constitution gives every person freedom of religion. But religion in India touches almost every part of life: food, dress, marriage, property, festivals, temple management. If every activity linked to a religion were fully protected, the state could not pass laws on temple finances, social reform or public health. The courts needed a way to separate the true core of a religion from activities that only happen to be connected to it. The ERP test became that filter.

What do Articles 25 and 26 say?

• Article 25(1): Every person has freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess (openly declare), practise and propagate (spread) religion. This right is subject to public order, morality and health, and to the other Fundamental Rights in Part III.
• Article 25(2)(a): The state can make laws to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political or other secular activity linked with religious practice. "Secular" here means "non-religious".
• Article 25(2)(b): The state can make laws for social welfare and reform, and to throw open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. For this clause, "Hindus" also includes Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists.
• Article 26: Every religious denomination (a distinct group within a religion, with its own name, common beliefs and organisation) has the right to set up and run institutions for religious and charitable purposes, to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, to own and acquire property, and to run that property according to law. This too is subject to public order, morality and health.

Notice the pattern: the Constitution itself says religious freedom is not absolute. Public order, morality and health can limit it. The ERP test decides how much protection a particular practice gets.

Where did it come from?

The doctrine was built step by step by the Supreme Court.

• Shirur Mutt case (1954) (Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt): A seven-judge bench said "religion" is not just belief. It also covers rituals, ceremonies and modes of worship that are an integral part of it. The court also said a denomination itself has autonomy to decide which practices are essential to it. This is where the word "essential" first entered the law.
• Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961): The court, in a judgment by Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, said only practices that are essential and integral to a religion are protected. It warned that some practices, though religious in form, may come from mere superstition and are not essential. This judgment gave the court, not the denomination, the role of deciding what is essential.
• Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta cases (1983 and 2004): The court held that the Tandava dance (performed in public with skulls and knives) was not an essential practice of the Ananda Marga group. In 2004 it noted that the group had adopted the dance only in 1966, after the group was founded, so the faith existed without it.
• Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994): The court held that offering prayers (namaz) in a mosque is not an essential part of Islam, because namaz can be offered anywhere, even in the open. So the state could acquire land on which a mosque stood.
• Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): Three students belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses faith stood respectfully but did not sing the national anthem, because their faith forbids it. The court protected them. It said the question is whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held, not whether the court finds it reasonable.

How does the test work?

A court usually asks these questions, one after another:

1. Is the practice religious at all, or is it mainly economic, political or secular (such as managing temple money)? Secular activities can be regulated under Article 25(2)(a).
2. Is it essential? Would the religion lose its basic character if the practice were removed? Courts look at the religion's own texts, its history, and whether the practice existed from the beginning or was added later.
3. Even if it is essential, does it clash with public order, morality or health, or with other Fundamental Rights? If it does, it can still be restricted.

Think of a tree. The roots and trunk are the essential practices; cut them and the tree dies. The branches, leaves and decorations hung on the tree are additions. You can trim them without killing the tree. The ERP test asks the court to tell the trunk from the decorations.

Key cases from recent years

• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): By a 3:2 majority, a five-judge bench set aside instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat). One of the majority judges held that it was not an essential part of Islam.
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018, Sabarimala case): By 4:1, a five-judge bench allowed women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The majority held that keeping out women aged 10 to 50 was not an essential practice, and that devotees of Lord Ayyappa are not a separate denomination. The lone woman judge on the bench, Justice Indu Malhotra, dissented. She said courts should not judge which religious practices are rational or essential.
• Sabarimala review and the nine-judge reference: In November 2019, a five-judge bench, while hearing review petitions, referred larger questions on religious freedom to a bench of seven or more judges. In February 2020, a nine-judge bench framed seven questions, including the scope of Articles 25 and 26 and how far courts can examine religious practices. The reference also covers women's entry into mosques, the entry of Parsi women married outside the community into fire temples, and female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Bohras. The nine-judge bench heard arguments from 7 April 2026 and reserved its verdict in May 2026. As of October 2026, the verdict is awaited.
• Hijab case: In March 2022, the Karnataka High Court held that wearing the hijab is not an essential practice of Islam and upheld a ban on it in government college classrooms. In October 2022, a two-judge Supreme Court bench gave a split verdict. One judge upheld the ban. The other said the ERP question was not even needed, because it was a matter of the student's choice and dignity. The case was then sent to the Chief Justice for a larger bench.

India's position: where the test is used

The ERP test shapes many everyday disputes: temple entry, management of religious trusts by state boards, noise from loudspeakers at places of worship, animal sacrifice, and festival practices such as bursting firecrackers. In firecracker cases, the courts have repeatedly said that the right to health under Article 21 limits religious freedom, because Article 25 itself is "subject to health".

Commonly confused concepts

• Article 25 vs Article 26: Article 25 is an individual right of every person. Article 26 is a group right of religious denominations. Both are subject to public order, morality and health, but Article 26 is not expressly subject to the other Fundamental Rights, while Article 25 is.
• Essential practice vs constitutional morality: The ERP test asks what the religion considers central. Constitutional morality asks whether a practice matches the values of the Constitution, such as equality and dignity. In the Sabarimala case, some judges relied more on constitutional morality than on ERP.
• Religious denomination vs religion: A denomination is a smaller, organised group within a religion, with its own name and shared beliefs. Hinduism is a religion; the Ananda Marga was treated as a denomination.
• Secular activity vs religious practice: Managing a temple's money and appointing its staff can be secular, so the state can regulate them. The way worship is performed is religious practice.
• Article 25(2)(a) vs 25(2)(b): Clause (a) lets the state regulate secular activities linked to religion. Clause (b) lets it pass social reform laws and open Hindu temples to all sections of Hindus.

Issues, criticism and the way forward

• Judges as theologians: Critics say the test forces judges to read religious texts and decide what a faith "really" requires, a job they are not trained for. Justice Indu Malhotra's Sabarimala dissent made a similar point.
• Inconsistency: Over the decades, courts have applied the test in different ways, and the 1954 and 1961 judgments differ on who decides what is essential: the denomination or the court.
• Protects groups, may hurt individuals: A practice can be essential to a group yet discriminate against some of its own members, such as women. Some judges have suggested asking instead whether a practice excludes or humiliates people, an "anti-exclusion" approach.
• Supporters' view: Supporters say some filter is needed. Without it, any practice could claim protection simply by calling itself religious, and the state could not act on health, safety or equality.
• Way forward: The nine-judge bench's verdict is expected to settle the scope of the test, the relationship between Articles 25 and 26, and the role of courts. Many scholars suggest relying more on the Constitution's own limits (public order, morality, health) and on equality and dignity, rather than on deciding what a religion believes.

Concepts to Know

• Profess, practise, propagate: To profess is to openly declare your faith. To practise is to follow its rituals. To propagate is to spread its teachings to others, but not to force anyone to convert.
• Religious denomination: A group of followers within a religion who share a common faith, a distinct name and an organisation of their own.
• Reference to a larger bench: When a smaller bench of the Supreme Court feels a question is too important or earlier judgments conflict, it sends the question to a bigger bench. A larger bench's view binds smaller benches.
• Review petition: A request asking the Supreme Court to look again at its own judgment, usually because of a clear error.
• Split verdict: When the judges on a bench are equally divided, so there is no majority decision and the case goes to a larger bench.