Context

• In September 2018, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered its landmark judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala, allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
• The ruling sparked nationwide debate and protests, especially in Kerala, reflecting tensions between religious autonomy and constitutional morality.
• At stake was not merely temple entry, but the deeper question of how a secular democracy reconciles faith, equality, and individual dignity.

Background of the Case

• The Practice in Question
  • The Sabarimala temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, traditionally barred women between the ages of 10 and 50, citing the deity’s celibate nature and long-standing custom.
  • The exclusion was supported by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.
• The Majority Judgment
  • By a 4:1 majority, the Court held that:
    • Devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not form a separate religious denomination.
    • The exclusion violated women’s freedom of religion.
    • Rule 3(b) was unconstitutional and contrary to statutory guarantees of temple access.
  • The majority emphasized gender justice, non-discrimination, and the primacy of fundamental rights.
• The Dissenting Opinion: Justice Indu Malhotra’s Perspective
  • Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent advanced a contrasting constitutional vision.
  • She argued that collective rights of religious communities must be harmonised with individual rights.
  • A broad principle of formal equality, she held, cannot override long-standing religious customs.
  • Central to her reasoning was the essential religious practice She viewed the exclusion as integral to the temple’s religious character and therefore constitutionally protected.

The Essential Religious Practices Doctrine

• Origins and Application
  • The essential religious practices (ERP) test empowers courts to determine whether a practice is fundamental to a religion.
  • If deemed essential, it receives protection under Articles 25 and 26; if not, the State may regulate it.
  • In Sastri Yagnapurushadji vs Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya (1966), the Court interpreted Hindu scriptures to define doctrinal essentials.
• Criticisms of the Doctrine
  • The ERP doctrine presents serious challenges:
  • It invites theological adjudication by secular courts.
  • It lacks procedural depth for resolving complex religious disputes.
  • It fails to resolve conflicts where an essential practice undermines human dignity.
  • By conditioning protection on judicial recognition of essentiality, the doctrine risks entrenching exclusionary practices.

The Anti-Exclusion Test: A Constitutional Alternative

• Conceptual Framework
  • To address these limitations, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud proposed the anti-exclusion test. This approach shifts the inquiry from theological necessity to constitutional impact.
  • Religious groups retain autonomy in defining their tenets, but practices that systematically exclude individuals in ways that impair dignity must yield to constitutional values.
  • The test focuses on whether exclusion restricts access to spaces central to civic or spiritual life and whether it violates equal moral membership.
• Key Distinction from the ERP Test
  • The distinction between the two approaches is foundational:
    • The ERP test asks whether a practice is essential to religion.
    • The anti-exclusion test asks whether its consequences are compatible with equality, liberty, and constitutional governance.
  • Under this framework, courts avoid doctrinal evaluation and instead assess the constitutional harm caused by exclusion.
  • The emphasis shifts from preserving tradition to safeguarding substantive equality.

Broader Constitutional Implications

• The principles emerging from Sabarimala extend beyond temple entry.
• Questions concerning the Dawoodi Bohra community’s practice of excommunication and the rights of Parsi women who marry outside the faith raise similar tensions between communitarian claims and individual conscience.
• India’s constitutional framework recognizes both religious freedom and the authority of denominations to manage their affairs.
• However, these rights are subject to public order, morality, and other fundamental rights.
• In a society, where religion shapes social identity, courts cannot ignore the real-world effects of exclusion.

Religion, Secularism, and Constitutional Morality

• The Indian Constitution envisions a model of principled secularism, neither hostile to religion nor subordinate to it.
• Religious belief remains protected, but its outward expression must align with the Constitution’s commitment to equal citizenship.
• The anti-exclusion approach affirms that faith is autonomous in doctrine yet accountable in practice.
• It reinforces the idea that no community can deny individuals access to institutions central to civic participation and spiritual life in the name of custom alone.

Conclusion

• The Sabarimala verdict represents a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
• It exposes the limitations of the essential religious practices doctrine and foregrounds the need for a dignity-centred framework.
• If the individual is the core unit of constitutional concern, then communitarian autonomy cannot override access to public religious spaces.
• By placing dignity, non-discrimination, and constitutional supremacy at the heart of the inquiry, the anti-exclusion test aligns religious freedom with the Constitution’s transformative vision.