RELIGIOUS AUTONOMY V. JUDICIAL INTERVENTION: DEFINING ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES IN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Religious autonomy is one of the essential pillars of Indian democracy, and the nation is responsible for guaranteeing the same access to every citizen. Despite the fundamentality and pivotal nature of religious freedom, it cannot be categorized as an absolute right of the individual or community. The same has been subject to reasonable restrictions which can be better ensured by judicial intervention and interpretation whenever required. The balance between religious autonomy and judicial intervention in India is a complex and evolving issue, especially in safeguarding constitutional rights while respecting religious traditions.  The Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices (ERP), formulated by the judiciary, determines which religious practices are fundamental to faith and deserve constitutional protection. Judicial intervention in religious matters often stirs controversy, as seen in landmark cases like Sabarimala and Triple Talaq, where the courts ruled against traditional practices in favor of gender equality and fundamental rights. These rulings underscore the judiciary’s role in ensuring that religious customs do not violate constitutional principles like justice, equality, and non-discrimination. Despite this, critics argue that such interventions infringe on religious autonomy, as the courts assume the authority to define what constitutes essential religious practices. The paper highlights the importance of a balanced approach, advocating for judicial intervention to be applied judiciously to protect individual rights while honoring religious traditions.  By thoughtfully addressing these tensions, the courts can ensure that religious practices are compatible with the values of a modern, diverse society, without compromising the core principles of religious autonomy.