Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine
The ERP doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court to distinguish between practices integral to a religion (which receive constitutional protection) and those that are merely incidental or social in character (which can be regulated by the State). A practice is considered "essential" only if its non-performance would fundamentally alter the religion itself.
- The doctrine was first articulated in the Shirur Mutt case (1954), which also defined a "religious denomination" as requiring a common faith, common organisation, and a distinctive name
- The 2018 Sabarimala majority held that exclusion of women was NOT an essential religious practice, while the lone dissent (Justice Indu Malhotra) held courts should not interfere in matters of deep religious faith
- Critics of the doctrine argue that courts — not religious communities — should not be the final arbiter of what is "essential" to a religion; this is the central challenge the nine-judge bench must resolve
● Tracked since March 14, 2026 · last seen August 27, 2026 · updates as the daily brief publishes
See it in today’s brief.
Daily current affairs with every static concept explained in place.
Read the daily brief