Judiciary's Role in Balancing Religious Practices and Constitutional Rights in Temple Entry Disputes
Recent Madras High Court judgments regarding temple rituals and entry have highlighted the judiciary's role in adjudicating religious disputes. Historically, such matters were treated as civil rights disputes, but since the 1950 Constitution, they are viewed through the lens of fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26. The courts use the 'essential religious practice' test to determine if a custom is integral to a religion and protected from state interference. However, religious freedom is subject to public order, health, and morality. The judiciary aims to ensure that religious practices do not undermine constitutional principles like equality and liberty.
Key Points
- Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution provide fundamental rights to practice and profess religion, subject to state regulation.
- The 'essential religious practice' test was developed by the Supreme Court to determine the constitutional protection of specific rituals.
- The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (1927) was a precursor to modern state oversight of temples.
- The Sabarimala case (2018) is a landmark example of the court subjecting religious practices to constitutional scrutiny.
Exam Facts
- Constitutional Articles: Article 25 (Freedom of conscience/religion) and Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs).
- Case: Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors vs State of Kerala (2018).
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.