India being a Secular country has a discrete amalgamation of people who have a belief in a different religion. Keeping in sight the importance of religion in the life of people our Constitution has envisaged the right to freedom of religion under article 25 of the Indian constitution. However, the ambit of religious practice is also restricted to reasonability. The term “Reasonable Restriction” justifies morality and legality above all practices. The doctrine of essentiality is one such legislation of the Indian Judiciary that can be said as the by-product of reasonable restriction. Through this article, I would elucidate the doctrine of essentiality, its importance, and its legislative enactments in the Indian Judiciary.

WHAT IS DOCTRINE OF ESSENTIALITY?

The word ‘essence’ means having dire importance or value. The word essentiality in layman’s term can be defined as anything that is fundamental or cardinal or is of necessity. In the legal framework, the doctrine of essentiality is a doctrine that has evolved to protect the religious practices that are essential or integral and does not violate any fundamental right. India being a secular country has discrete religious beliefs and to deny any is to violate the freedom of religion.

Statistically, in Pew Research Center analysis of 198 countries, India has been ranked the fourth worst when it comes to religious intolerance[1]. Female genital mutilation, untouchability, gender inequality, superstitious practice, hate crimes, mob violence, etc are practiced stating cultural and religious validation.

Keeping in sight the rampant violation of human rights and the immoral nature of the religious practice The Supreme Court Of India decided to limit as well as protect the religious practice based on the essentiality and non-essentiality.The doctrine of essentiality thus was invented by a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the ‘Shirur Mutt’ case in 1954.[2]

The doctrine can be better understood concerning society. The existence of various rites and ceremonies like fasting, following unique clothing styles, or discretely offering prayer can be considered as a pious or sacred act by choice but the same cannot be considered as a mandatory practice. The SC in Ismail Faruqui Case stated that visiting a mosque is not an integral part of religious practice and namaz can be read at any place.[3]

LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS

The diversity in the practice of religion calls for the need for determination of essentiality. This leads to veracity in determination and creates controversy as to secularism. From a personal perspective, the origin of the doctrine of essentiality is a necessary judicial approach towards secularism thereby protecting the constitutional rights as well as religious rights as enshrined in article 14, article 21, article 25, and article 26 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court Of India in Indian Young Lawyers Association And Others Versus The State Of Kerela And Others questioned the essentiality of prohibiting the entry of women between age 10-50 years inside the temple. A writ petition was filed under article 32 of the Indian Constitution stating the practice as violative of articles 14, 15, 25, and 51A (e) of the Constitution of India.[4] Prohibiting the entry of women of certain age groups does not constitute an essential religious practice as it violates the very fundamental right of equality to a certain class of women. It also encourages the stereotypical belief that naturally occurring physical and biological simulations of the human body to question the sanctity of woman.  No practice of rites or ceremonies should encourage an immoral act. Secularism v Human rights are what makes the doctrine of essentiality controversial. Animal slaughtering is also an immoral act that is practiced in the name of religion. But ironically holy books like The Bhagwad Gita, Quran, Bible, Guru Granth Sahib sight animal slaughter as a sinful act. Sacrificing any animal as a religious practice is certainly against animal rights and an immoral act under clause (a) of Article 25 of the constitution[5] and surely not an integral practice for religion.

Article 25(a) of the Indian Constitution draws a thin line between freedom of religion and practice of religion which states that any practice that violates public order, health, or morality has enough reason to be restricted and considered not essentiality. The main purpose of the doctrine is to allow the practice of religious belief without violating the law of nature.

The court in Shirur Mutt’s case stated that to determine what lies as an essential practice is under the sole belief of the religion.[6] If rituals of worshiping a deity distinctly are a religious belief then it will fall under the protection of article 25. But the state has drawn a line restricting practices that violate public order, health and, morality. Also, even though under article 26 of the Indian Constitution, the court has given rights to the religious institutions to perform rituals and ceremonies according to their religious belief without any interference, it limits the autonomous power of the denominations under the domain of public order, health and morality.

 The controversial nature of the doctrine of essentiality has been in question since the past few years. Whether the court should hold the autonomous power to decide in matters of religion remains in question. I would strongly agree with the power held by the judges to decide on matters of religious practice. Religion is a creation of the people and belief of the people and any wrongful act violating the rights of the people shall be forbidden. Now whether an act is wrongful or not cannot be limited to one definition, that is why the court has adhered to grounds of morality. When it comes to morality we need to understand that it is constitutional morality in the picture. Whether the courts decide essentiality on the ground of religious belief or origin of religion or based on a particular community, the sole purpose is the protection of the constitutional and fundamental rights of the citizen.

CONCLUSION

The doctrine of essentiality is pivotal to check and balance secularism in a democratic and secular country like India. The judiciary is the belief system of justice and to protect and discourage the stereotype beliefs that sprung from religion is its duty. One cannot separate Law and religion. Moreover, the doctrine has contributed to the advancement of the Indian Judiciary system and made it more just and fair in terms of secularism. The Supreme Court in Durgah Committee, Ajmer, and others v. Syed Hussain Ali and others has justified the stereotypical nature of some religious practices and the need doctrine of essentiality to exclude such practices and break the stereotypes. In the Anand Marga Case the court prohibited the practice of rites like tandav dance in public and using lethal weapons and skulls as immoral and against the public order[7]. It is necessary to scrutinize the belief or the existence of practice from various angles of origin from religion, its existence in a certain community of people, thereby not being immoral and passing the essentiality test.

The jurisprudence of the law of nature is universal and guides human behavior. As a result morality, religion, society plays a vital role in human conduct. The domain of essentiality is just in evolving human behavior and creating a superior society. An act against morality cannot be just in the eyes of law and is against the welfare of mankind and society as a whole. The judiciary is always welcome to exceptions and every exception makes the system more transparent and just for the citizen of the country. Needless to say, the doctrine of essentiality is one such exception towards transparency.

References:

[1]Ananya Bhattacharya, India is the Fourth-worst Country In The World For Religious Violence, QuartzIndia,https://qz.com/india/959802/india-is-the-fourth-worst-country-in-the-world-for-religious-violence/

[2] Explained Desk, Sabarimala Order: What is the ‘ essentiality’ test in religious practice? , The Indian Express(NewDelhi,15/11/19)https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-supreme-courts-sabarimala-order-and-the-essentiality-test-in-religious-practice-6119369/

[3]M. Ismail Faruqui and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., LNIND 2003 SC 369

[4] Indian Young Lawyers Association And Others Versus The State Of Kerela And Others LNIND 2018 SC 492, pg 6

[5]. Mohd. Han if Quarashi v State of Bihar,1958 AIR 731, 1959 SCR 629

[6] The Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments Madrasvs. Sri Laxmindra Thirtha Swamiar Of Sri Sirur Mutt The State Of Travancore Cochin- LNIND 1954 SC 69

[7]Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and others v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, 1984 AIR 512, 1984 SCR (1) 447

Author: Reetasa Samal (Legal Intern at Legal Desire – June 2020)

An aspiring legal enthusist pursuing BA LLB at Symbiosis Law School,Noida who aims to reach the pinnacles of legal professionalism. My best interests include legal research, public speaking, and social services. I believe ” hardwork spotlights the character of the person .”