Article 25 of the Structure of India states in its first part that “all individuals are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the precise freely to profess, observe and propagate faith.” But the second part of the identical article declares that not solely can the state regulate the secular actions of spiritual observe, however it might additionally present “for social welfare and reform” for Hindus.
This language was included within the structure primarily to enshrine the targets of the Temple Entry Motion, through which Dalits (untouchables) sought entry into Hindu temples. Many higher caste Hindus felt that reform was mandatory to keep up the vitality of Hinduism and forestall the segmentation of various caste teams.
However state intervention in spiritual affairs has moved past intervening to permit Dalits to enter temples. This constitutional language explains why India — notably its courts — have developed an interventionist idea of faith. Judges, most of whom aren’t spiritual students or theologians, incessantly take it upon themselves to weigh in on questions of spiritual observe and perception.
Moreover, as a result of rights and privileges in India have turn out to be so certain up with collective identities, typically decided by faith, the courts have turn out to be concerned with interpretations of spiritual doctrine. A case determined in October 2026, The Secretary To Authorities vs Sameer Ahamed N. dominated that “an individual who converts from a Hindu social order to a non-Hindu social order can not declare affirmative motion…. merely on the premise of the social backwardness related along with his pre-conversion standing.” With the intention to decide how caste-based affirmative motion intersects with faith, the court docket devoted a number of paragraphs to exploring the theology of Islam, noting its perception in egalitarianism and citing the Quran and hadith: “Islam rests, in its foundational theological conception, upon the equality of human beings and doesn’t make delivery, lineage or descent the measure of human value. The Holy Quran articulates this precept in clear phrases in Surah Al-Hujurat, Ayah (49:13).”
By its nature, such a ruling can’t be confined merely to the executive difficulty of affirmative motion advantages. It touches upon theology, economics, and the logistics of whether or not one ought to convert to a different faith or not.
This strategy is kind of totally different from these in different nations. For instance, in the USA, the Supreme Court docket developed the “hands-off strategy” to faith, which has “repeatedly declared that judges are precluded from making choices that require evaluating and figuring out the substance of spiritual doctrine.”
In India, courts have turn out to be entangled with questions of spiritual doctrine and perception. Take, as an example, the assertion of the Allahabad Excessive Court docket within the case Vineet Vincent Pereira v State of UP that it was incorrect for a Catholic priest to say that Christianity is the one true faith, an announcement that would invite legal prosecution for insulting the spiritual beliefs of others. Whereas one could morally or philosophically oppose such a declare, additionally it is a core Christian perception, an space not usually considered in a court docket’s competence.
The Indian courts have grappled with the problem of when and how you can intervene in spiritual life for many years, typically pleasing neither reformers nor traditionalists. Courts have weighed in on Muslim marriage customs, whether or not the hijab is crucial to Islam, and whether or not ladies of menstruating ages between 10 and 50 could be barred from getting into the Sabarimala Temple as per the temple’s customized. In these examples, somewhat than merely deciphering secular legislation, the courts have put ahead theories that outlined the doctrines of main religions.
A significant 1961 Supreme Court docket case regarding a Muslim shrine, Durgah Committee, Ajmer v Syed Hussain Ali, was a milestone in growing the important spiritual practices (ERP) doctrine, which had emerged within the earlier The Commissioner, Hindu Non secular Endowments, Madras v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt case in 1954. The doctrine gave the courts license to differentiate between what they believed to be the important practices of a faith — assured constitutional safety — and practices that “could have sprung from merely superstitious beliefs and will in that sense be extraneous and unessential accretions to faith itself.” The Supreme Court docket went on to argue that “except such practices are discovered to represent an important and integral a part of a faith their declare ….[they] could should be fastidiously scrutinized; in different phrases, the safety have to be confined to such spiritual practices as are an important and an integral a part of it and no different.”
But, there has these days been pushback in opposition to the judiciary’s overreach, coming from each a secular, constitutionalist angle and from Hindus who see their spiritual beliefs and practices as being overregulated. For instance, in April 2026, the Supreme Court docket of India stayed the legal proceedings in opposition to Vineet Vincent Pereira.
The Sabarimala Temple difficulty, specifically, touched a nerve as a result of it pitted the judiciary in opposition to a bit of conventional Hindu beliefs. In 2018, the Supreme Court docket of India allowed menstruating ladies to enter the Sabarimala Temple in Keralam, overturning centuries of custom. Traditionalists argued that the state must defer to non secular communities in issues of reform. The Supreme Court docket is presently reconsidering the ERP doctrine, and whether or not it imposes an elite interpretation of faith on practitioners.
Many Hindus have additionally taken exception to longstanding authorities management over the administration of Hindu temples, a coverage that doesn’t prolong to administration over Christian church buildings and Muslim mosques. The Supreme Court docket is presently reviewing the constitutional validity of legal guidelines regulating the administration of temples throughout a number of South Indian states.
Nevertheless well-intentioned the important spiritual practices doctrine is and nevertheless noble the thought of spiritual reform is likely to be, the end result has been the in depth entanglement of the Indian state with spiritual beliefs and practices in a fashion that will appear intrusive. They actually depart the door open to judgments and legal guidelines that violate the spirit of spiritual freedom and sometimes result in bitter resentment, particularly when core spiritual beliefs are outlined by judges.
This doesn’t imply that the Indian authorities mustn’t regulate or legislate on social, private, or financial points that affect the rights of all Indians, however these needs to be framed in secular phrases, not as judge-driven reformation of sacred tenets. For instance, legal guidelines abolishing polygamy needs to be framed as authorized and civic reform and modernization somewhat than as interpretations of theology and spiritual jurisprudence. India can each put ahead a contemporary, streamlined physique of secular legal guidelines and preserve respect for spiritual freedom, together with the precise of communities to outline their very own practices.