"Allahabad High Court Rules Headscarf Not Essential Religious Practice Under Article 25"
Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine
a judicial test that protects under Article 25 only those religious practices integral to a faith's fundamental character.
Article 25
constitutional provision guaranteeing freedom to profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion under Article 25, which allows every person to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion. This right is not absolute. It is subject to public order, morality, and health. It is also subject to other fundamental rights, including Articles 14 and 15, which prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion.
To manage conflicts between religious claims and state or institutional action, courts developed the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine. The doctrine was first articulated in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Shirur Mutt (1954). The Supreme Court held that only those practices that are essential or integral to a religion receive constitutional protection under Article 25. Practices that are merely customary, incidental, or optional do not qualify. Courts determine what is essential by examining the religion's own doctrines, texts, and historical practices.
The Constitution also protects institutional religious autonomy under Article 26, which allows religious denominations to manage their own affairs. In educational settings, this intersects with the autonomy of private institutions to set their own internal rules, including dress codes. The balance between individual religious freedom, institutional autonomy, and anti-discrimination norms is a recurring constitutional question that courts have addressed across several landmark cases.
The ERP doctrine functions as a threshold test. When a citizen claims that a state action or institutional rule violates religious freedom under Article 25, courts first ask whether the practice is essential or integral to the religion. The test is not whether the individual sincerely believes in the practice. The test is whether the practice is so fundamental that its prohibition would alter the very character of the faith. A sincere personal belief is not enough to clear this bar.
The doctrine has been applied across a wide range of cases. In Shirur Mutt (1954), the Supreme Court used it to protect temple management practices. In Dargah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961), the Court held that practices of a merely religious or superstitious character, not forming part of the religion itself, are not protected. In Sabarimala (2018), the Supreme Court applied the doctrine to strike down the exclusion of women of menstruating age from the temple, holding that such exclusion was not an essential practice of the Ayyappa faith. …
Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?
A legislation which confers on the executive or administrative authority an unguided and uncontrolled discretionary power in the matter of application of law violates which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India?
Consider the following statements regarding the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine:
1.It was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Shirur Mutt (1954).
2.The doctrine protects all sincere personal religious beliefs of an individual under Article 25.
3.Under the doctrine, the burden of proving that a practice is essential to a religion lies on the claimant.
4.The doctrine has been applied in the Sabarimala case (2018) to examine whether exclusion of women was an essential practice.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Consider the following pairs of cases and their holdings regarding the hijab/headscarf:
1.Fathima Thasneem v. State of Kerala (2018) — Wearing a hijab is an essential religious practice protected under Article 25.
2.Resham v. State of Karnataka (2022) — Wearing a hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam.
3.Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka (2023) — The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict, leaving no binding majority ruling.
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
With reference to Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, consider the following statements:
1.It guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion.
2.This right is subject to public order, morality, and health.
3.It is also subject to other provisions of Part III of the Constitution.
4.It applies only to citizens of India and not to non-citizens.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing the headscarf petition, held that a school's dress code falls within the school's domain if it satisfies certain conditions. Which of the following conditions did the court specify?
1.The dress code must be uniform.
2.The dress code must be bona fide.
3.The dress code must be approved by the state government.
4.The dress code must be non-discriminatory and intended to maintain discipline.
Assertion (A): A student who wore a headscarf in lower classes without objection from the school cannot compel the school to continue that accommodation when the school changes its uniform policy.
Reason (R): Past informal accommodation of a religious practice by an institution creates a vested and enforceable fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account