From Essentially Religious to Essentiality: How Semantic Drift Reshaped Religious Freedom in India

The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine has become one of the most controversial features of Indian constitutional jurisprudence on religious freedom. Developed through judicial interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, the doctrine requires courts to determine whether a disputed practice constitutes an essential and integral part of a religion before granting constitutional protection. While originally intended to distinguish religious matters from secular or administrative activities, the doctrine gradually evolved into a far more intrusive inquiry into theological essentiality. This paper argues that such evolution reflects a form of semantic drift: the judicial focus shifted from asking whether a practice was “essentially religious” in character to whether it was “essential” to the religion itself. Though subtle in language, this transformation significantly altered the scope of religious liberty in India. The paper traces the historical development of the doctrine from the Shirur Mutt Case to later decisions such as the Durgah Committee Case, Sabarimala Judgment, and the Karnataka Hijab Case. It demonstrates how courts increasingly assumed the role of theological arbiters, often privileging dominant interpretations of faith while marginalising minority and evolving practices. The paper further argues that the essentiality test narrows constitutional protection by excluding claims at a preliminary stage rather than examining them through principles of dignity, equality, autonomy, and proportionality. The paper also undertakes a comparative analysis of jurisdictions such as South Africa, Kenya, Malaysia, and the United States to show that other constitutional systems generally avoid deep theological adjudication and instead prioritize sincerity, accommodation, and rights-balancing. It concludes by proposing a shift toward a rights-based framework centred on sincerity of belief and constitutional proportionality.