Every person has a fundamental right to entertain such religious practices as approved by his/her conscience. Do you think that 'doctrine of essentiality' restricts this autonomy?
Main Body
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to practice religion to the freedom of their conscience.
However, the doctrine of essentiality evolved by the SC, starting from the Shir'ur Mutt case, the SC, starting from the Shir'ur Mutt case, suggests that certain practices are essential to a religion, while others are not an integral part.
In 1992, SC ruled that mosques for worship is not on integral part of Islam.
Recently, in Sabarimala verdict, SC ruled that entry of women in that temple is not essential to the religion.
Lately, there has been controversy on wearing of 'Burqa' by females in Islam.
Thus, doctrine of essentiality restricts autonomy of practice, as -
The court does not possess religious expertise to comment on practice.
There is a vast body of unwritten practices in every religion. Thus, the doctrine is not fair.
Hurts religious sentiments of the people.
Against the provision of Article 25.
However, its use is necessary by the fact -
Social ills prevailing in any religion. It's a must to remove them.
Throwing open Hindu religion to all castes via laws.
Certain practice may affect the unity or fabric of the South. Need to regulate them.
Necessary for the growth of the individual. Eg. freedom of clothing.
The Doctrine should be used by the court only after a proper understanding of the religion faith, facilitated by consultation from religious experts, and the best practices worldwide should be taken into account.
— GAURAV OJHA · AIR 204
Open original scan
Page 7
GAURAV OJHA
Indian Constitution - Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions and Basic Structure
Fundamental Rights
Right to Religion and Doctrine of Essentiality
256
Total words
7
Paragraphs
argumentative
Tone