The independence to practice any religion cannot be treated as an absolute right.

Our constitution
provides that every person is free to practice, profess and propagate any religion and
denominational have right to manage their international affairs. But the practice of religion must
be in consonance with other fundamental rights ensured under the Constitution, and must also not
disturbing social order or must not create a situation of chaos by disturbing the peace in society.
For instance Practices like sati, child marriages, dowry, various sacrificial offerings have been
banned owing to the fact that it has been classed as immoral social practices.

No right guaranteed in India is an absolute one, every right is subject to some exceptions. In the
similar manner right to religion can be extended till it is not disturbing the right of others or not
violating the basic structure of the Constitution.

Public order, morality and health are the main phase used to limit the right to freedom of religion.
In India Courts have interpreted the scope of this article on the bases of intent which our forefathers
have while drafting these provisions. It was observed by Apex Court in various instances that
minorities have right to manage their internal affairs. But the Court also reiterated that this “right
is not an absolute or unlimited right. In the first place, it is subject to public order, morality and
health. In the second place, it is subject to other provisions of Part III.”

The constitution guarantees individual rights [Article 25(1)], as well as group rights [Article
26(b)], but these guarantees are for ‘religious practices’ and not for all practices associated with
religion. Over the years, the Supreme Court has developed a controversial doctrine of ‘essential
religious practices’ to determine which religious practices enjoy constitutional protection. The
career of the doctrine has been marked by shifting jurisprudence on what constitutes essential
religious practices.

For quite some time now, the high threshold under this doctrine requires the denomination to
demonstrate a contested practice as so central that its absence will change the nature of the religion
fundamentally (Ananda Margi II case, Haji Ali case). So while the “non-entry” of women can be
a religious tenet, in this case, it cannot be readily presumed that its regulation will fundamentally
and irreversibly challenge the existence of the sect and its core belief system.

Even if this battle can be won by the Devasom Board, the constitution has subjected all essential
beliefs and customs to a further test to allow regulation in the limited category of cases where
public order, health or morality are imperilled. After all, a plurality of religious practices that
predate the idea of nationhood and constitutionalism by centuries can sustain practises that are
essential but still offend the spirit of the constitution in dangerous ways. In the landmark judgments
of Naz Foundation and Shreya Singhal, ‘morality’ has been interpreted as ‘constitutional morality’
and not popular or individual morality. Constitutional morality may be understood as the core
framework of values and principles like equality, non-discrimination, dignity, rule of law etc., that
characterises and justifies the constitution. In the Sabarimala case, there is a very strong
presumption that the controversial custom of restricting women offends the value of ‘non-
discrimination’ which is the central pillar of that constitutional morality.