India is a country with a rich diversity of religions, faiths, and beliefs, making constitutional law a crucial subject in every judiciary exam. The framers of the Indian Constitution understood this well, which is why they included a separate set of provisions to protect the freedom of religion as a fundamental right. Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution guarantee this right to every person in India and are among the most important topics for judiciary exam preparation.

However, this right is not absolute. The State has the power to regulate certain religious practices when they affect public order, morality, or health. Understanding this balance is essential for aspirants preparing for any judiciary exam, as questions are frequently asked from this area.

This is where the Essential Religious Practices Test becomes highly important. Courts use this test to determine which religious practices deserve constitutional protection and which do not. The concept is not only significant from a legal perspective but also holds high weightage in judiciary exams like PCS J, APO, and Civil Judge exams.

This blog explains Articles 25 to 28 in simple language, making it easier for judiciary exam aspirants to grasp the concept. It also covers the Article 25 freedom of religion and the essential practices test, along with key case laws that have shaped judicial interpretation. A clear understanding of these concepts will help candidates strengthen their judiciary exam preparation and score better in constitutional law sections.

What Do Articles 25 to 28 Say?

Article 25: Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice, and Propagation of Religion

Article 25 is the main provision dealing with the individual's right to religion. It gives every person the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. These rights can be understood simply as:

•        Freedom of Conscience: A person can hold any religious belief in their mind.

•        Freedom to Profess: A person can openly declare their religion.

•        Freedom to Practice: A person can follow religious rituals and ceremonies.

•        Freedom to Propagate: A person can share their religious beliefs with others. However, this does not mean the right to convert someone by force or fraud.

Article 25 comes with two important clauses. First, the State can make laws on grounds of public order, morality, and health. Second, the State can regulate or restrict economic, financial, political, or other secular activities that may be associated with religious practice. The State can also make laws providing for social welfare and reform, or for throwing open Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Article 26: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs

Article 26 gives rights to religious denominations (groups or communities). Every religious denomination has the right to:

•        Establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.

•        Manage its own affairs in matters of religion.

•        Acquire movable and immovable property.

•        Administer such property in accordance with law.

These rights are subject to public order, morality, and health.

Article 27: Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of Religion

Article 27 says that no person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. In simple terms, the government cannot use tax money to promote a specific religion.

Article 28: Freedom from Religious Instruction in Educational Institutions

Article 28 deals with religious instruction in educational institutions. It provides that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds. However, institutions administered by the State but established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted are exempt from this rule.

What is the Essential Religious Practices Test?

The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test is a legal doctrine developed by the Supreme Court of India. It is used to identify which practices of a religion are so fundamental to that religion that they must be given constitutional protection. Only such practices get the protection of Article 25 or Article 26.

The doctrine of essentiality was first introduced by a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the landmark case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954). This case is commonly referred to as the Shirur Mutt case. The Court said in that judgment that what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be understood with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself.

It is important to note that a practice which is merely permitted or allowed by a religion does not automatically become an essential practice. The Court in the Shirur Mutt case drew a clear line between religious practices that are truly essential and those that are merely associated with religion due to habit or tradition.

Key Case Laws on the Essential Religious Practices Test

1. The Shirur Mutt Case (1954)

This is the foundational case. A seven-judge Bench held that the State cannot regulate religious practices as such. It can only regulate activities connected with religion that are economic, commercial, or political in nature. The Court also clarified that what is essential to a religion must be judged based on the doctrines of that religion, not by an external standard.

2. Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958)

In this case, the Supreme Court had to decide whether restrictions on temple entry for certain sections of society was an essential part of Hindu religion. The Court held that such restrictive practices were unconstitutional and opened the temples to all Hindus. This was a significant step towards applying the ERP test to promote social justice.

3. Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadisharananda Avadhuta (2004)

This case dealt with the Tandava Dance claimed as an essential practice of the Ananda Marga faith. The Supreme Court held that the Tandava Dance was not an essential religious practice. It reasoned that since the dance was introduced only in 1966 (while the faith was founded in 1955), its absence would not fundamentally alter the religion. This case helped refine the test by focusing on whether the absence of a practice would alter the very nature of the religion.

4. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)

This is one of the most prominent cases where the ERP test was applied. The Supreme Court held that the practice of Triple Talaq (instant divorce) was not an essential practice of Islam. The Court noted that a practice that is merely permitted or not prohibited by a religion does not become an essential or positive tenet of that religion. Triple Talaq was even described as sinful by the Hanafi school of Islam that tolerated it. Therefore, it was held that removing this practice would not fundamentally alter the Islamic religion.

5. The Ayodhya Case (2020) - M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das

In this significant case, the Supreme Court held that offering prayers is an essential practice of Islam, but offering prayers specifically at a mosque is not an essential practice. This distinction between what is essential to the religion and what is merely a preferred mode of practice was crucial in the final decision.

How Has the ERP Test Been Used and Criticised?

Benefits of the Doctrine

The ERP test has served important purposes over the years:

•        It has helped courts strike a balance between the right to religion and other fundamental rights like the right to equality.

•        It has allowed courts to ensure that constitutional morality takes precedence over religious morality in cases where they conflict.

•        It has helped the State carry out social welfare and reform by distinguishing between practices that are truly religious and those that are secular or exploitative.

Criticism of the Doctrine

Despite its usefulness, the ERP test has faced serious criticism from legal scholars and practitioners:

•        There is no fixed or uniform parameter for deciding what is essential. In some cases, courts have relied on religious texts, in others on the conduct of the followers, and in still others on whether the practice existed when the religion originated.

•        A major question arises: should it be judges who decide what is essential to a religion, or should it be the members of that religious community themselves?

Conclusion

Articles 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution form a carefully balanced framework for protecting religious freedom in a pluralistic society. The right to freedom of religion under Article 25 is a cornerstone of India's secular fabric, but it must be read alongside the State's power to regulate, reform, and maintain social order.

For judiciary aspirants, a thorough understanding of Articles 25 to 28 and the case laws applying the ERP test is not just important for examinations but also for developing a sound understanding of constitutional law in practice.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. What is the Essential Religious Practices Test?

The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Test is a doctrine developed by the Supreme Court of India to determine which practices of a religion are so integral and essential to it that they must receive constitutional protection under Articles 25 and 26. Only those practices that are fundamental to the religion, without which the religion would change its very nature, get this protection.

Q2. In which case was the Essential Religious Practices Test first introduced?

The doctrine of essentiality was first introduced by a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the Shirur Mutt case of 1954, formally known as The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt. The Court held that what constitutes the essential part of a religion must be determined with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself.

Q3. What is the difference between Article 25 and Article 26?

Article 25 gives rights to individuals, including the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. Article 26, on the other hand, gives rights to religious denominations or groups. These include the right to establish religious institutions, manage their religious affairs, and own and administer property.

Ready to crack the judiciary exam? Online judiciary exam preparation gives you the edge with expert guidance, smart study plans, and real exam-level practice—anytime, anywhere. Stay ahead, stay consistent, and turn your judiciary dream into reality.