Home  > Recent Judgements  > SABARIMALA REFERENCE CASE: AIMPLB URGES SUPREME COURT TO RECONSIDER ‘ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES’ DOCTRINE

March 30- 2026

SABARIMALA REFERENCE CASE: AIMPLB URGES SUPREME COURT TO RECONSIDER ‘ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES’ DOCTRINE

Introduction

The ongoing constitutional debate surrounding religious freedom in India has taken a significant turn in the Sabarimala reference case, with All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) urging the Supreme Court of India to refrain from determining what constitutes “essential religious practices” (ERP).

In its written submissions before a nine-judge bench, the Board has raised critical concerns about judicial overreach into matters of faith, arguing that such determinations risk undermining the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26.

Background: The Sabarimala Reference

The present reference stems from the landmark 2018 judgment in the Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala case, where the Supreme Court permitted entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple.

Subsequently, review petitions were filed, leading to a 2019 order referring broader constitutional questions particularly concerning religious freedom and denominational rights to a larger bench. The matter is now scheduled for hearing from April 7.

AIMPLB’s Core Argument: Courts Should Not Define Religion

At the heart of AIMPLB’s submissions is a fundamental question: Should courts decide what is essential to a religion?

The Board firmly answers in the negative.

It contends that:

  • Determining the “core” of any religion is inherently subjective.
  • Religious practices evolve over time and vary across contexts.
  • Such matters are best left to religious scholars, denominations, and followers, not courts.

By applying the ERP doctrine, courts effectively place a burden on believers to prove the essentiality of their practices an exercise the Board considers both impractical and constitutionally inappropriate.

Critique of the Essential Religious Practices Doctrine

The ERP doctrine has long been used by Indian courts to distinguish protected religious practices from non-essential ones. However, AIMPLB argues that this approach is flawed because:

  • It requires judicial interpretation of theology, which courts are not equipped to undertake.
  • It risks inconsistent and subjective rulings.
  • It may lead to intrusion into religious autonomy.

Instead, the Board proposes that judicial scrutiny should focus on whether State action satisfies the constitutional limitations of:

  • Public order
  • Morality
  • Health

This, according to the Board, would ensure that courts remain within their constitutional role without encroaching upon religious domains.

Reinterpreting ‘Morality’ Under Article 25

A significant aspect of AIMPLB’s submission is its critique of the reliance on “constitutional morality.”

The Board argues that:

  • Morality should not be viewed exclusively through a constitutional lens.
  • It must also account for the moral framework within a religion, unless it directly conflicts with constitutional values.

This balanced approach, the Board suggests, would prevent unnecessary interference in religious practices while still safeguarding fundamental rights.

Gender and Religious Freedom: A False Binary?

Addressing the gender equality concerns central to the Sabarimala dispute, AIMPLB challenges the assumption that gender rights and religious freedom are inherently in conflict.

It emphasizes that:

  • Women can exercise autonomy while choosing to follow religious practices.
  • Courts should recognize the coexistence of identity and faith, rather than framing them as oppositional.

This perspective adds a nuanced dimension to the broader constitutional debate on equality and religious rights.

Equality in a Multi-Religious Society

The Board also raises concerns about how formal equality may produce unequal outcomes in a diverse society like India.

It argues that:

  • Different religions have distinct practices and obligations.
  • A “one-size-fits-all” approach may disproportionately impact minority communities.
  • Neutral rules can sometimes have unequal practical effects.

For instance, regulations such as restricting access to protected monuments from sunrise to sunset may unintentionally hinder practices like Namaz in certain mosques, while not affecting other religions in the same way.

Historical Evolution of the ERP Doctrine

The doctrine of Essential Religious Practices finds its roots in early constitutional jurisprudence, particularly in the COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS V. SRI LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF SHIRUR MUTT CASE. In that judgment, the Supreme Court held that what constitutes an essential part of a religion is to be primarily ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself.

Over time, however, the application of this doctrine has evolved. Courts have increasingly taken upon themselves the task of determining essentiality, often relying on texts, expert opinions, and historical practices. This shift has drawn criticism for placing judges in the role of theological interpreters an issue now squarely raised by AIMPLB in the present reference.

A Constitutional Moment of Significance

As the hearing approaches, the Sabarimala reference stands as a constitutional moment of great significance. It compels the judiciary to reflect on its institutional role in a deeply diverse society where law and religion often intersect.

The decision of the nine-judge bench will not only determine the contours of the ERP doctrine but also clarify the broader relationship between faith, freedom, and constitutional governance in India.

The Way Forward: Rethinking Judicial Approach

AIMPLB suggests that instead of the ERP doctrine, courts should:

  • Develop principles to distinguish secular activities from religious matters.
  • Interpret constitutional limitations like public order and morality with sensitivity to religious diversity.
  • Avoid theological determinations that may undermine religious autonomy.

Conclusion

The submissions by AIMPLB in the Sabarimala reference case reopen a crucial constitutional dialogue: Where should courts draw the line between protecting fundamental rights and respecting religious autonomy?

As the nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court prepares to hear the matter, the outcome could significantly reshape the jurisprudence on religious freedom in India—particularly the future of the Essential Religious Practices doctrine.

The case is not merely about Sabarimala; it is about defining the boundaries of judicial intervention in matters of faith, a question that lies at the very heart of