Doctrine of essentiality

Published on 16 Jan 2025

The doctrine of essentiality was initially proposed by the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt case in 1954. The idea behind this doctrine is to protect only such religious practices that are essential and integral to the religion. Non-essential practices if found to be violative of fundamental rights could be struck down by the judiciary.

Relevance of essentiality doctrine

• Balance religious freedom with state regulation: The doctrine ensures that only those practices that are non-essential to that religion get regulated by the state.

• Example: In the Dargah committee, Ajmer vs Syed Hussain Ali the court declared that a clear difference must be made between essential religious practices and superstitious religious practices.

• Prevent discriminatory practices: Many religious practices are discriminating, often harmful, to any particular section. These must be regulated without affecting the spirit of the religion.

• Example: In the Sabarimala case, 2018 the Supreme Court declared the exclusion of women from the temple as violative of Article 14 and Article 25.

• Preserve constitutional morality: Essentiality doctrine enables the state to act against those practices that violate the core principles underlying the Constitution.

• Example: In the Triple Talak case, 2017 the Supreme Court declared that triple talaq is not an essential practice and it violated the right of a person to lead a dignified life.

• Maintain secularism: The role of the state in ensuring that none of the religion or religious institutions holds unchecked power enhances India’s secularism.

• Protection of cultural practices: Culture is often intertwined with religion and hence protecting these essential practices preserves the cultural heritage.

Criticisms of essentiality doctrine

• Religious expertise of judiciary: Argument that the judiciary is not well versed in determining the essentiality behind a religious practice. The subjective term could be interpreted as per the judiciary's knowledge.

• Lack of accountability of judiciary: The Court is not an elected body and is non-accountable to the public. Such verdicts create pressure on the state to implement them which undermines the public image of the government.

• Example: The efforts of the Kerala government to implement the Sabarimala judgement invited plenty of criticism and public remorse.

• Harm religious sentiments: Certain practices might be very close to the believers and rulings against these practices may cause tensions and even riots.

• Example: The Ismail Faruqui case in 1994, in which the Supreme Court concluded that mosque was not an essential practice of Islam affected the sentiments of Muslims.

• Majoritarian bias: Minorities have raised concerns that the doctrine could be misused by the majoritarian community to target and eradicate minority practices.

• Lead to unintended consequence: These social changes can have a spillover effect on the lives of many people.

• Example: In the Hijab case 2022, the Karnataka high court declaring hijab not an essential practice led to the denial of educational opportunities to many Muslim girls

Thus, essentiality doctrine has been a crucial innovation by the judiciary in balancing the rights of religious institutions and individual rights. Care must be taken by the judiciary to ensure that their judgements on these matters are well-researched, unbiased and practically feasible. 

Tags:
Polity

Keywords:
Doctrine of essentiality Shirur Mutt case religious freedom constitutional morality

Syllabus:
General Studies Paper 2

Topics:
Indian Constitution