Essential Religious Practices Test
Indian Polity & Governance
- PYQs7
- Articles1
Background
Understanding this test is crucial for analyzing judicial pronouncements on religious freedom, the limits of state intervention in religious matters, and the balance between individual religious rights and public order, morality, and health. It's a recurring theme in constitutional law and social justice.
The Essential Religious Practices Test is a judicial doctrine evolved by the Supreme Court of India to determine whether a particular practice is fundamental and integral to a religion, thereby deserving protection under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. This test helps the judiciary balance religious freedom with other constitutional principles like public order, morality, and health.
Facts & tables
- Origin and Purpose
- Developed by the Supreme Court to interpret the scope of religious freedom guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
- Criteria for Application
- A practice must be 'essential' or 'integral' to the religion, meaning it is mandatory from the religion's origin, to receive constitutional protection.
- Key Case Example
- Applied in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs State of Bihar (1958) regarding cow slaughter, where the court held that cow slaughter on Bakr-Eid is not an essential Islamic practice.
- Distinction
- Aims to distinguish between core religious tenets and practices that are merely customary, superstitious, or secular.
| Type | Reference |
|---|---|
| Conceptual area | Fundamental Rights |
| Conceptual area | Judiciary & Judicial Review |
| Body | Role |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of India | Evolves and applies |
Prelims angle
Prelims angle: Multi-statement analysis
Prelims angle: Factual recall
- Judicial doctrine by SC for Articles 25 & 26.
- Determines if a practice is integral to a religion.
- Applied in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi case.
- Distinguishes core tenets from customs.
- Crucial for religious freedom and state intervention.
| Year | Framing tags |
|---|---|
| 2024 | Factual recall, Conceptual understanding |
| 2023 | Factual recall, Conceptual understanding |
| 2023 | Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall |
| 2020 | Multi-statement analysis, Conceptual understanding |
| 2018 | Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding |
| 2018 | Conceptual understanding, Factual recall |
| 2017 | Conceptual understanding, Definition-based questions |
Timeline
-
Fundamental Rights
Conceptual area
-
Judiciary & Judicial Review
Conceptual area
-
Prelims 2017
Conceptual understanding, Definition-based questions
-
Prelims 2018
Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2018
Conceptual understanding, Factual recall
-
Prelims 2020
Multi-statement analysis, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2023
Factual recall, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2023
Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall
-
Prelims 2024
Factual recall, Conceptual understanding
-
Contradictions within India’s cow protection regime
A judicial doctrine by the Supreme Court to identify practices essential to a religion, granting them protection under Articles 25/26. It distinguishes core tenets from customs, impacting cases on religious freedom and state intervention.
See also
No related topics linked yet.
Past papers
2018–2023 · 4 questions
In the news
Contradictions within India’s cow protection regime
A judicial doctrine by the Supreme Court to identify practices essential to a religion, granting them protection under Articles 25/26. It distinguishes core tenets from customs, impacting cases on religious freedom and state intervention.
Try these PYQs
Consider the following statements:
1. If the election of the President of India is declared void by the Supreme Court of India, all acts done by him/her in the performance of duties of his/her office of President before the date of decision become invalid.
2. Election for the post of the President of India can be postponed on the ground that some Legislative Assemblies have been dissolved and elections are yet to take place.
3. When a Bill is presented to the President of India, the Constitution prescribes time limits within which he/she has to declare his/her assent.
How many of the above statements are correct?
* Statement 1 is incorrect: If the election of a person as President is declared void by the Supreme Court, acts done by him before the date of such declaration of the Supreme Court are not invalidated and continue to remain in force. * Statement 2 is incorrect: The Supreme Court in 1974 held that the dissolution of the state legislative assembly would not be a ground for preventing the holding of the election on the expiry of the term of the President. Nor can it be grounds to suggest that the election to the office of the President could be held only after the election to the state is held, where the Legislative Assembly of a State is dissolved. * Statement 3 is incorrect: The Constitution of India does not prescribe any time limit within which the President has to decide concerning a bill presented to him/her for his/her assent. Thus the President of India can simply keep the bills pending for an indefinite period.
In India, which one of the following Constitutional Amendments was widely believed to be enacted to overcome the judicial interpretations of the Fundamental Rights?
* The First Amendment Act, of 1951, added the fourth clause to Article 15 that empowered the government to make any law for the upliftment of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled * Tribes. The added clause elucidates that in case such special provisions are introduced, they cannot be said to be breaching Article 15 and Article 29(2) of the Constitution. * The need to insert this clause was felt after the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam (1951). According to the facts of this case, the Madras government issued an Order that provided reservation on the grounds of religion, race, and caste. This Order was contended to be in breach of Article 15(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court also gave a literal interpretation to the constitutional provisions and held that reserving seats in public institutions for backward classes violates Articles 15(1) and 29(2). Therefore, to nullify the effect of similar judicial pronouncements, Article 15 was amended. * Similarly, Article 19(1)(a) grants the right to free speech and expression to Indian citizens. This right is considered an essential feature of democracy. However, Article 19(2) specifies the restrictions that can curtail this freedom. The First Amendment to the Indian Constitution altered these restrictions by widening their ambit. The second change, via the Amendment Act of 1951, was made to Clause 6 of Article 19. Note: UPSC deleted this question when the final answer key was issued.
Consider the following statements:
1. The Constitution of India defines its ‘basic structure’ in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy.
2. The Constitution of India provides for ‘judicial review’ to safeguard the citizens’ liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is incorrect: The term "basic structure" is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. It was first propounded by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). The Court ruled that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368, there are certain features of the Constitution that form its basic structure and cannot be altered or destroyed through amendments by Parliament. Although the basic structure doctrine includes elements such as federalism, secularism, democracy, and fundamental rights, these features are not explicitly listed as the 'basic structure' in the Constitution itself. Statement 2 is incorrect: The Constitution of India does not explicitly mention the power of judicial review. Instead, this power is derived from various provisions, particularly Articles 13, 32, 131-136, 143, 226, and 246. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court and High Courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions, ensuring they do not violate fundamental rights or other constitutional provisions. This power is essential in maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution and protecting citizens' rights. Hence, neither of the statements is correct.
Consider the following statements :
1. The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
2. The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court and no judgement can be made on it.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is correct: The Ninth Schedule was introduced through the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) to protect certain laws from judicial review, even if they violated Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Constitution). Statement 2 is incorrect: The protection under the Ninth Schedule is not absolute. As per the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and reaffirmed in the I.R. Coelho case (2007), laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, can still be challenged if they violate the "Basic Structure" of the Constitution. Thus, while the Ninth Schedule provides a degree of protection, the Supreme Court retains the power to review laws that undermine the Constitution’s core principles. Hence, the correct answer is option (a) 1 only.
Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India, has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy?
* The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017), declared that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India. * The court held that this right is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. * Article 21: States that 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.' The court interpreted 'personal liberty' broadly to include various aspects of privacy. _While the other options are fundamental rights, they are not directly where the Right to Privacy is placed:_ * Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. * Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. * Article 19: Guarantees certain freedoms like speech and expression, assembly, etc.
Show 2 more PYQs
Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Which of the following in the Constitution of India correctly and appropriately imply the above statement?
Right to Privacy and Article 21: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. In the landmark 2017 judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India unanimously held that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21. This ruling reinforced privacy as a fundamental right, ensuring protection against unwarranted state and private intrusions. Part III of the Constitution covers Fundamental Rights, which include: - Article 19: Right to freedom of speech and expression, freedom of movement, and other essential liberties. - Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty, which now includes privacy after the Puttaswamy judgment. Article 14: Ensures equality before the law, but does not explicitly deal with privacy. Article 17: Abolishes untouchability. Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs) are non-enforceable guidelines, not fundamental rights. Article 24: Prohibits child labor but has no relation to privacy. Thus, the right to privacy is most closely linked to Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III of the Indian Constitution. Hence the correct answer is option (c).
In India, Judicial Review implies -
The power of the Judiciary to pronounce upon the constitutionality of laws and executive orders. Judicial Review in India refers to the power of the Judiciary to examine laws and executive actions to ensure they comply with the Constitution of India. This power allows the courts to strike down any law or executive order that is found to be unconstitutional, thereby upholding the supremacy of the Constitution. Judicial Review is an essential feature of the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and the separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Thus, Judicial Review acts as a safeguard against unconstitutional actions and reinforces the rule of law in India.