Freedom of Religion and Essential Religious Practices Doctrine
Indian Polity & Governance
- PYQs8
- Articles1
Background
It's a recurring theme in Indian polity, involving the interpretation of fundamental rights, secularism, and the judiciary's role in defining religious practices. It often leads to conflicts between individual rights and state regulations, testing the balance of constitutional principles.
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. The Essential Religious Practice (ERP) doctrine, evolved by the Supreme Court, determines which practices are integral to a religion and thus protected under Article 25.
Facts & tables
- Constitutional Basis
- Article 25(1) guarantees individual religious freedom.
- Limitations
- Subject to public order, morality, health, and other Fundamental Rights.
- ERP Doctrine Origin
- Originated in the Shirur Mutt case (1954) and further developed in subsequent judgments.
- Judicial Role
- Judiciary determines if a practice is fundamental to a religion's identity.
| Type | Reference |
|---|---|
| Conceptual area | Fundamental Rights |
| Conceptual area | Constitutional Amendments & Structure |
| Body | Role |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of India | Interprets constitutional provisions, adjudicates disputes |
| High Courts | Interprets constitutional provisions, adjudicates disputes |
| State Government | Formulates and implements policies, subject to judicial review |
Prelims angle
Prelims angle: Statement-based questions
Prelims angle: Factual recall
- Article 25 guarantees religious freedom.
- Subject to public order, morality, health.
- Essential Religious Practice (ERP) doctrine.
- Judiciary determines essentiality of practices.
- Balance between individual rights and state regulation.
| Year | Framing tags |
|---|---|
| 2025 | Statement-based questions, Factual recall |
| 2024 | Definition-based questions, Institutional roles and functions |
| 2023 | Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall |
| 2023 | Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding |
| 2023 | Factual recall, Conceptual understanding |
| 2022 | Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding |
| 2021 | Multi-statement analysis, Conceptual understanding |
| 2020 | Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall |
Timeline
-
Fundamental Rights
Conceptual area
-
Constitutional Amendments & Structure
Conceptual area
-
Prelims 2020
Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall
-
Prelims 2021
Multi-statement analysis, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2022
Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2023
Multi-statement analysis, Factual recall
-
Prelims 2023
Statement-based questions, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2023
Factual recall, Conceptual understanding
-
Prelims 2024
Definition-based questions, Institutional roles and functions
-
Prelims 2025
Statement-based questions, Factual recall
-
Karnataka’s hijab row: A rollback, at last
The Karnataka government has rolled back its controversial 2022 order that barred hijab-donning girls from entering classrooms in schools and pre-university colleges. This decision, a manifesto promise of the ruling Congress party, reverses a policy that had led to widespread protests and legal challenges, reaching both the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court.
See also
Past papers
2020–2025 · 8 questions
In the news
Karnataka’s hijab row: A rollback, at last
The Karnataka government has rolled back its controversial 2022 order that barred hijab-donning girls from entering classrooms in schools and pre-university colleges. This decision, a manifesto promise of the ruling Congress party, reverses a policy that had led to widespread protests and legal challenges, reaching both the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court.
Try these PYQs
Consider the following pairs:
Provision in the Constitution of India – Stated under
I. Separation of Judiciary from the Executive in the public services of the State : The Directive Principles of the State Policy
II. Valuing and preserving of the rich heritage of our composite culture : The Fundamental Duties
III. Prohibition of employment of children below the age of 14 years in factories : The Fundamental Rights
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
Each of these constitutional provisions is accurately linked to its correct part within the Constitution of India. ✅ Pair I: Directive Principles of State Policy – Correct
* Article 50 mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State. ✅ Pair II: Fundamental Duties – Correct
* Article 51A(f) states that citizens must value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. ✅ Pair III: Fundamental Rights – Correct
* Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in hazardous work such as factories or mines.
Consider the following statements:
1. ‘Right to the City’ is an agreed human right and the UN-Habitat monitors the commitments made by each country in this regard.
2. ‘Right to the City’ gives every occupant of the city the right to reclaim public spaces and public participation in the city.
3. ‘Right to the City’ means that the State cannot deny any public service or facility to the unauthorized colonies in the city.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct:
Statement 1 is incorrect. The “Right to the City” is not a formally agreed universal human right in international law. It is a normative and political concept. UN-Habitat uses the idea in the New Urban Agenda, but: it does not legally monitor binding national commitments. Statement 2 is correct. The Right to the City is the right of all inhabitants (present and future, permanent and temporary) to inhabit, use, occupy, produce, transform, govern, and enjoy cities, towns, and human settlements that are just, inclusive, safe, sustainable and democratic, defined as common goods for enjoying life with dignity and peace. The right to the city further implies responsibilities on governments and people to claim, defend, and promote this right. Statement 3 is correct. “Right to the City” is interpreted as an inclusive urban citizenship right. The concept says that all city dwellers, including: migrants, slum dwellers, residents of unauthorized colonies, have a claim to urban services and dignity. It views residents not as “encroachers” but as rights-bearing urban citizens who contribute to the city economy. Hence: denial of water, sanitation, waste management, etc. merely because a settlement is “unauthorized” is seen as violating the spirit of Right to the City. Indian courts have also held that basic services cannot be denied even to illegal settlements, as they are part of Article 21 – Right to Life. Note: UPSC usually takes welfare centric approach in questions.
Consider the following statements:
1. Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than three months.
2. State cannot enter into any contract with private corporations for sharing of Aadhaar data.
3. Aadhaar is mandatory for obtaining insurance products.
4. Aadhaar is mandatory for getting benefits funded out of the Consolidated Fund of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than six months, which invalidated the provision in the Aadhaar Act that allowed the storage of such data for up to five years. Statement 2 is correct: The Supreme Court struck down Section 57 which allowed private corporations to verify Aadhaar data. The Court held this provision unconstitutional, as it was seen to violate privacy rights. Statement 3 is incorrect: The 2018 Supreme Court judgment declared that making Aadhaar mandatory for services beyond welfare schemes, including financial services like insurance or for preventing money laundering, was unconstitutional. In response to this ruling, the IRDAI issued an advisory in 2019, clarifying that Aadhaar is not mandatory for obtaining insurance. It also withdrew its earlier 2017 policy that had made Aadhaar compulsory for insurance in the context of anti-money laundering measures. Statement 4 is correct: In the Aadhaar verdict, the Supreme Court upheld Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, which allows the Central or State Governments to make Aadhaar authentication mandatory for receiving subsidies, benefits, or services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India. The Court defined welfare schemes as those funded by the Consolidated Fund of India, thus validating the use of Aadhaar for such schemes. Therefore, the correct answer is B. 2 and 4 only.
Consider the following statements:
Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of the administration.
Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term 'efficiency of administration'.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
* Statement I is correct: It has frequently been argued that reservation is contrary to efficiency and merit. Even the Supreme Court of India appeared to have agreed with this argument in some of its judgments, holding that Article 335 mention of the term efficiency of administration will limit the scope of Article 16(4) provision for reservation in services. * Statement II is incorrect: Article 335 of the Constitution of India states that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. * Article 335 of the Indian Constitution only mentions the efficiency of administration and does not define the same.
With reference to the writs, issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements:
1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty.
2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company.
3. Any public minded person can be a petitioner to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Statement 1 is correct: Mandamus is a command issued by the court to a public official asking him to perform his official duties that he has failed or refused to perform. It can also be issued against any public body, a corporation, an inferior court, a tribunal, or a government for the same purpose. It is usually not usable against a private entity unless it is entrusted with a public duty. Statement 2 is correct: As explained above, Mandamus can be used against a government corporation and/or company when it is discharging a "public duty", so the statement is incomplete. Public Duty is Key: Mandamus aims to compel performance of a public duty, not just private functions. Statement 3 is correct: Quo Warranto is issued by the court to inquire into the legality of the claim of a person to a public office. Hence, it prevents illegal usurpation of public office by a person. Unlike the other writs, this can be sought by any interested person and not necessarily by the aggrieved person. Note (on Statement 2): In UPSC Prelims, statements must be judged as written, without adding extra conditions. A company does not become subject to the writ of Mandamus only because it is a Government company. Government ownership by itself is not enough. Since Statement 2 is framed in this limited and absolute sense, and no additional condition like “public duty” is mentioned, the statement is treated as correct.
Show 3 more PYQs
A Writ of Prohibition is an order issued by the Supreme Court or High Courts to :
Writ of Prohibition: * It is a judicial order issued by a higher court (Supreme Court or High Court) to a lower court or tribunal. * It prevents the lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting contrary to law. * Purpose: To stop ongoing proceedings in a case where the lower court lacks jurisdiction or violates legal procedures. * Nature: It is preventive, ensuring the lower court does not act unlawfully rather than correcting a wrong decision after it has occurred. * Example: If a tribunal starts hearing a case that legally falls under the jurisdiction of a civil court, the Writ of Prohibition can halt such proceedings. * Comparison with Certiorari: Prohibition is issued before judgment to stop proceedings, whereas Certiorari is issued after judgment to quash orders passed unlawfully.
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. According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances.
2. The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to a person being held for preventive detention.
3. According to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, confession of the accused before the police cannot be used as evidence.
How many of the above statements are correct?
* Statement 1 is correct: According to Article 355 of the Indian Constitution, it shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. * Statement 2 is correct: Article 22(3)(b) mentions that individuals detained under preventive detention laws are not initially entitled to consult or be defended by a legal practitioner until the grounds of detention are disclosed to them. Although the constitution allows for exceptions in preventive detention cases, it does not prohibit state governments from providing legal counsel to the detained person. The state has the discretion to offer legal assistance if it wishes. * Statement 3 is incorrect: Section 32(1) of POTA 2002 allows confessions made to a police officer of at least Superintendent rank, overriding certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act.