CivilsWisdom.
Updated · Today
Polity IR Econ Env S&T Security Geo Social Culture History
Polity & Governance May 05, 2026 4 min read Daily brief · #3 of 39

Any casteist exclusion cannot be part of religion, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in observations made during a bench hearing, held that any religious practice that involves the exclusion of certain castes cannot be trea...

GS Paper 2

What Happened

  • The Supreme Court, in observations made during a bench hearing, held that any religious practice that involves the exclusion of certain castes cannot be treated as a protected religious practice under the Constitution.
  • Justice B. V. Nagarathna stated that a religious practice cannot extend to "the exclusion of certain castes," drawing a clear line between faith and discriminatory custom.
  • The observations came in the context of the ongoing nine-judge Constitution Bench reference on the Sabarimala case, which involves questions of essential religious practices, gender exclusion, and Article 17 (abolition of untouchability).
  • Justice Nagarathna questioned the logic of applying Article 17's untouchability framework to gender-based exclusion, noting that the article was historically grounded in caste-based discrimination — but the broader principle that caste cannot be used to justify exclusion was underscored.

Static Topic Bridges

Essential Religious Practices Test (ERP Test)

The Essential Religious Practices test is the judicial framework the Supreme Court uses to determine which practices are constitutionally protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Only those practices that are "essential and integral" to a religion attract full constitutional protection from state interference.

The test originated in the landmark 1954 judgment Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt (AIR 1954 SC 282). The Court held that what constitutes an essential part of religion must be determined with reference to the doctrines of the religion itself.

  • Article 25: Guarantees all persons freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion — subject to public order, morality, health, and other Fundamental Rights
  • Article 26: Protects the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion
  • The ERP test has been applied in cases involving entry into temples, circumcision, animal sacrifice, wearing of religious attire, and more
  • The Sabarimala judgment (2018) — Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala — held that excluding women aged 10–50 was not an essential religious practice; the five-judge bench was 4:1, with a review reference later sent to a nine-judge bench

Connection to this news: The present observations build on the ERP framework by clarifying that even if a practice is claimed as religious, it cannot be "essential" if it consists of caste-based exclusion — a form of discrimination the Constitution explicitly prohibits.

Article 17 — Abolition of Untouchability

Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes "untouchability" in any form and makes its practice in any form a punishable offence. It is one of the few Fundamental Rights that operates not just against the State but also against private individuals.

  • Article 17 is an absolute right with no reasonable restrictions clause — it cannot be suspended even during Emergency
  • The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (formerly the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955) operationalises Article 17
  • "Untouchability" in the constitutional sense is broader than the traditional concept and has been interpreted to cover any social disability imposed on account of caste
  • The nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference is examining whether Article 17 can be applied to gender-based exclusion from places of worship — a question that also intersects with caste, since exclusion has historically operated along caste lines

Connection to this news: Justice Nagarathna's observations draw attention to the original purpose of Article 17 — eliminating caste-based social disabilities — and caution against its mechanical extension to contexts where caste-based exclusion may be dressed in religious language.

Right to Equality and Anti-Discrimination Jurisprudence

Articles 14, 15, and 17 together form the constitutional core of anti-discrimination law in India. Article 15(2) specifically prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth in access to public places, shops, hotels, wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads, and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

  • Article 15(2) applies to privately owned but publicly dedicated places, not purely private religious spaces — a distinction that complicates temple entry cases
  • The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 added Article 15(4), enabling special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes
  • Courts have consistently held that caste cannot be a basis for exclusion from places with a public character, even if managed by a religious body
  • The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 criminalises social and economic boycotts imposed on members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by caste panchayats or similar bodies

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court's position reinforces that the right to equality and the prohibition on caste discrimination create an outer limit on what can be defended as a religious practice — no essential practice doctrine can override the constitutional bar on caste-based exclusion.

Key Facts & Data

  • The nine-judge Constitution Bench was constituted after the Sabarimala review reference in 2019
  • The Shirur Mutt case (1954) first articulated the Essential Religious Practices test
  • Article 17 is one of the few Fundamental Rights that binds private parties directly, not just the State
  • The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 prescribes imprisonment up to six months or fine or both for enforcing untouchability
  • Caste-based exclusion from religious institutions has been challenged across multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court in post-Independence India
  • The Sabarimala original five-judge ruling (2018) remains the largest bench to rule on gender exclusion from places of worship
On this page
  1. What Happened
  2. Static Topic Bridges
  3. Essential Religious Practices Test (ERP Test)
  4. Article 17 — Abolition of Untouchability
  5. Right to Equality and Anti-Discrimination Jurisprudence
  6. Key Facts & Data
Display