The ‘Essential Practices’ Doctrine

What is it about?

This article addresses the doctrine of ‘essential practices' that has developed in our jurisprudence, and has been rampantly used by the Indian Supreme Court. As its name suggests, this doctrine allows the courts to rule on whether a belief or a practice is ‘essential’ to the religion. The Constitution of India envisaged interference in religious matters only on the grounds of maintenance of ‘public order’, ‘morality’ and ‘health’ under Article 25. However, courts have begun to intervene into matters of religion based on these judicial creations. This has resulted in courts looking at religious texts and scriptures to decide whether the impugned belief or practice is ‘integral’ to the religion or not. It has ended up rejecting certain traditions and rituals that sub-sects and denominations practice, despite the cases not falling under issues that invoke the aforementioned constitutional limitations. Not just the importance but their very existence is is in danger. This article examines a plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court on the issue in tracing this erroneous application. It decries the use of this doctrine, and recommends eschewing its usage to protect religious freedoms in India. Once the court limits itself to intervening only constitutionally stipulated grounds, religious beliefs and practices can flourish unimpeded. In a plural democracy like India, minimal court intervention is necessary to ensure the autonomy of religious and group minorities.

Featured Image