Discuss the 'Doctrine of Essentiality' referred to by the courts in the context of religious practices in India.

Doctrine of Essentiality

1. Evolved from the Shirur Mutt case where the Supreme Court balanced Article 25 (religious freedom) with larger public interest.

2. Holds that unless a religious practice is essential for the religion, it can be regulated by the State. Eg Kesh & Kirpan essential for Sikh.

3. The essentiality of a practice determined based on the various religious scriptures and impartial hearing.

However, it has become a point of contention due to the following reasons -

1. Courts are not an 'eclectic body' and leads to judiciopapism

   • Nikhil Soni case

2. Court imposition of what religion means → stifles individual autonomy

   • held by minority judge Indu Malhotra in Sabrimala Case.

3. Goes against individual freedom as to an atheist nothing can be religious

4. Leads to unintended consequences.

   • Hijab case restricted education of girls.
   • Ismail Farooqui case lead to Namaz in open in Gurgaon.

Yet, they are necessary to -

1. uphold rights of people.

   • eg Triple Talaq banned - Shayara Bano case

2. Uphold dignity of women & gender justice Eg: Sabrimala temple entry.

3. Uphold constitutional morality as Article 25 itself says reasonable restrictions based on other fundamental rights

Way ahead

1. Need to balance the necessity of reform with lack of sufficiency. ⊙ Debate and public participation ⊙ Parliamentary reforms by law. ⊙ Building consensus.

2. Principle of judicial restraint unless absolutely necessary.

3. Sensitive matter → need to go slow as by Law Commission