After Reading This Article You Can Solve This UPSC Mains Model Questions:
“Religious freedom in India is not absolute but subject to constitutional morality.” Analyse this statement with reference to recent judicial trends and landmark judgments. 250 Words (GS-2, Polity)
Context
Recently, the Madras High Court delivered two landmark judgments involving the Thiruparankundram Deepathoon and the hymn-reciting rights of the Thenkalai sect at the Kanchipuram Varadaraja Perumal temple.
These rulings highlight the increasing role of the judiciary in adjudicating complex religious disputes. By intervening in these matters, the court has reaffirmed that temples are not exclusive “private spaces” immune to constitutional oversight.
This development signifies a critical juncture in Indian law where religious practices are systematically aligned with Constitutional Principles.
Evolution from Civil Rights to Constitutional Rights in Temple‑Related Disputes
1. Pre-Constitutional Era: Temple Entry as Civil Disputes
Civil Litigation Framework: In the pre-constitutional era, disputes regarding temple entry and co-worship were treated as private civil rights disputes.
Kamudhi Temple Entry Case: A classic example is the Kamudhi temple entry case, where the Nadar community fought for the right to enter the Kamudhi temple in Ramanathapuram, with the litigation eventually reaching the Privy Council in London.
In Sankaralinga Nadan and Ors v. Raja Rajeswara Dorai and Ors (1908), the Privy Council was called upon to decide whether the Nadar community had a right to enter the Kamudhi temple, reflecting how such questions were framed in terms of civil rights rather than fundamental rights.
2. Legislative Interventions in the Madras Presidency
Regulatory Milestones: In 1927, the Madras Presidency government enacted the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act to govern temples and their endowments.
Supervisory Role: This legislation enabled the auditing of temple funds and the creation of local temple committees, thereby enshrining the supervisory role of the Presidency government over temple administration.
3. Post-1950: The Shift to Fundamental Rights
Constitutional Adoption: The Indian Constitution adopted in 1950, introduced Articles 25 and 26, granting freedom of worship to both individuals and religious denominations.
Public Interest Restrictions: These rights were made subject to public order, health, and morality, allowing the state to regulate worship that offended the public conscience.
Jurisprudential Transformation: Courts moved beyond civil rights to focus on constitutional directives, equality, and religious freedom, leading to the blossoming of modern jurisprudence around temple entry, religious freedoms, and equality in the appointment of priests.
4. Role of States in Shaping Temple‑Related Jurisprudence
Legislative Leadership: Many States led the way by enacting the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for better governance.
However, theseregulations invited judicial oversight, where writ courts adjudicated whether State intervention respected religious denominational rights while safeguarding the constitutional rights of others, thereby contributing to the development of temple‑related jurisprudence over the last 70 years.
Core Constitutional Concept: The Essential Religious Practice (ERP) Test
1. Nature of the Essential Religious Practice Test
Concept of the Doctrine of Essentiality: In development of jurisprudence on religious disputes, inquiry has been undertaken by courts to determine whether religious practices conflict with constitutional principles, particularly in instances involving restriction of entry or customary practices that infringe upon fundamental rights, and such matters have accordingly been brought before constitutional courts for adjudication.
Subsequently, Essential Religious Practice (ERP) Test, doctrine evolved by Supreme Court, has been applied to ascertain whether particular custom or practice is essentially integral to religion, failing which it has been subjected to scrutiny under established constitutional norms.
Secular vs. Sacred: Practices that are not essentially religious have been deemed “secular” and therefore open to judicial guidance, whereas those found to be essential are given greater protection, though not absolute immunity.
2. Criticism and Continued Use of the Essential Religious Practice Test
Judicial Criticism: The essential religious practice test has faced criticism for inconsistent interpretation in subsequent judgments, with different benches arriving at divergent conclusions on what qualifies as “essential”.
Despite this criticism, courts have continued to use the test to bring a measure of objectivity to decisions by focusing on the core tenets of the religion itself, rather than on transient or peripheral customs.
Sabarimala Judgment and Consolidation of Doctrine: In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), widely known as Sabarimala Case, significant consolidation was undertaken when it was held by Supreme Court that even practices regarded as essential cannot be shielded from judicial review if found inconsistent with constitutional morality.
Supremacy of Constitutional Morality: It has now been established as law of land that religious freedoms remain subject to constitutional morality, which is founded upon foundational principles of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Recent Madras High Court Judgments
1. Thiruparankundram Deepathoon Judgment
Upholding Rituals: The court permitted the lighting of the Karthigai Deepam at the stone pillar on the hilltop, treating it as a part of the temple’s ritual framework.
Regulation of Customs: This reaffirmed that constitutional courts can uphold religious rituals when they intersect with tradition and constitutional law.
2. Kanchipuram Varadaraja Perumal Temple Dispute
Sectarian Rights: The court resolved a divide between the Thenkalai and Vadakalai sects regarding hymn-recitation.
Exclusive Rights Upheld: Relying on 200-year-old disputes and orders from 1915/1969, the court upheld the exclusive right of the Thenkalai sect to lead recitations, balancing sectarian autonomy with non-discrimination.
Significance of Judiciary’s Role in Constitutionalization of Faith
Progression of religious disputes to High Courts and Supreme Court has marked transformative phase in Indian jurisprudence, as religious institutions have increasingly been situated within democratic constitutional framework, thereby limiting perception of absolute institutional autonomy.
Affirmation of Constitutional Supremacy in Religious Adjudication: When such disputes are brought before constitutional courts, authority of judiciary to examine intersection between faith and fundamental rights—including Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), Article 21 (life and personal liberty), Article 25 (freedom of religion), and Article 26 (denominational rights)—is reaffirmed, particularly in matters concerning temple entry, ritual participation, and institutional representation.
Integration of Temples within Public Law Framework: Argument that temples constitute purely private religious spaces immune from oversight has been weakened, as many institutions are governed under religious endowment legislations, thereby bringing their administration within domain of public law and enabling legitimate judicial supervision.
Institutionalisation of Religion: Increasing frequency of litigation has positioned law relating to religion at forefront of constitutional discourse, where courts function as structured forums for resolving tensions between religious practice and individual dignity, without allowing either sphere to dominate absolutely.
Harmonisation of Denominational Autonomy: Judicial engagement has aimed at reconciling autonomy of religious denominations with constitutional morality (adherence to foundational values of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity), ensuring that traditional authority remains subject to rule of law.
Protection of Individual Rights within Religious Spaces: Through exercise of judicial review, deeply entrenched practices have been examined to ensure that rights of individual worshippers are not curtailed in violation of equality, non-discrimination, or personal liberty, thereby reinforcing rights-based constitutional order.
Restructuring of State–Religion–Citizen Interface: Continuous constitutional scrutiny has reshaped relationship between State, religious institutions, and citizens, embedding governance of faith-based institutions within broader constitutional architecture while maintaining space for legitimate religious freedom.
Challenges in Judicial Adjudication of Constitutionalization of Faith
Despite the progressive intent behind the “constitutionalization” of religion, the judiciary faces significant institutional and social hurdles when entering the sacred sphere.
Judicial Overreach and Expertise Gap: Extensive intervention into rituals and doctrines risks judicial overreach, as courts may intrude upon domains traditionally managed by religious authorities.
Furthermore, judges may lack the theological expertise required to interpret ancient scriptures, leading to decisions that are legally sound but religiously contested.
Inconsistency in the ERP Test: The Essential Religious Practice (ERP) test often suffers from doctrinal uncertainty due to inconsistent application across different benches.
Further, varying interpretations of what constitutes an “essential” practice undermine legal predictability, making it difficult for religious institutions to anticipate judicial outcomes.
Risk of Politicization: High-profile religious rulings are frequently politicized, with actors utilizing court orders to mobilize support or deepen social divisions.
Conflict Between Morality and Autonomy: A fundamental challenge lies in balancing Constitutional Morality with the denominational autonomy guaranteed under Article 26. Courts often face accusations of “secular paternalism” when pushing for reform, or complicity in discrimination when deferring to traditional customs.
Implementation and Enforcement Hurdles: Even when courts issue landmark directions, the ground-level implementation remains problematic. The execution of judicial orders is often hindered by local resistance, social boycotts, or institutional non-cooperation.
Way forward: Strengthening Constitutional‑Religious Harmony
1. Strategic Directions for the Judiciary
Consistency in Standards: Courts should apply clear and consistent standards in the ERP test to avoid contradictory rulings.
Avoidance of Overreach: Interventions should focus on core principles rather than micromanaging rituals.
Evidence-Based Adjudication: Greater reliance on theological and historical evidence is needed to make decisions context-sensitive.
Pre-litigation Mediation: Mechanisms like expert-committee consultations should be explored to reduce adversarial litigation.
Promoting Institutional Mediation: Courts should encourage Peace Committees and mediation for disputes involving shared sacred sites, as seen in the Thiruparankundram case.
2. Role of the Legislature and Executive
Legislative Review: Religious endowment laws should be updated to match contemporary constitutional values like financial accountability.
Administrative Training: Temple management bodies should be trained to implement equality and representation in daily administration.
Neutral Regulation: The state must ensure that the regulation of religious practices is neutral and non-discriminatory.
3. Engagement of Civil Society and Religious Institutions
Internalising Equality: Religious institutions should adopt non-discrimination in their administrative decisions.
Inter-sect Dialogue: Promoting amicable dispute resolution can reduce the polarisation that leads to litigation.
Constitutional Literacy: Educational curricula should foster a constitutional-minded citizenry that respects both faith and fundamental rights.
Conclusion
The evolution of temple jurisprudence in India signifies that religious freedom is not an absolute right but one that is tethered to the bedrock of the Constitution. By entering the “sanctum,” the judiciary does not seek to replace faith, but to ensure that faith operates within the framework of Justice, Liberty, and Equality. The enduring role of the courts remains to protect the core spiritual essence of religions while purging practices that undermine human dignity.
