From India's founding as a republic to the present day, religious customs have long been the subject of legal and social debates, in particular where those customs violate the constitutional principles of equality and personal rights. The Sabarimala judgment figured as a significant development in the face of the tussle that was till then an ingrained problem, and revival of the temple dress code debate in Kerala in the aftermath has reignited debate on religious freedom, personal choice and gender equality. The critics say dress codes restrict individual choice, while Temple officials say it's all about religious respect.

The main issue with this controversy is Articles 25 and 26 of Indian Constitution. The clause Article 25 ensures the right to profess and practice religion subject to conditions such as the security of the State, public order, morality and health. [1]Article 26 of the Constitution of India guarantees the freedom to manage religious affairs.[2] It also gives religious denominations the right to own and manage property. However, this autonomy is not unlimited. Ultimately, the question is: do tradition dictate personal freedoms, or do religious practices have to adapt to align with constitutional values?

Kerala Dress Code Issue

The recent standoff in Kerala has been over traditional temple dress codes, more specifically the tradition that tells male devotees to take off their shirts while entering certain temples. 'Temples in Kerala enforce the rule that men need to be bare-chested and women are expected to wear a mundu.' [3] Temple authorities and traditionalists argue that the practice is a traditional part of temple's long heritage of religious practises. In many temples across Kerala, including the well-known Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram and the Guruvayur Sri Krishna Temple, men are required to remove their shirts before entering the inner sanctum. While often seen as a mark of respect, this tradition is believed to have historical roots in caste distinctions, as it once visibly set apart Brahmins, who wore the sacred thread (punool), from others.

Recently, Swami Satchidananda of Sivagiri Mutt openly criticized the practice, calling it outdated and discriminatory. He argued that such customs have no place in a modern, inclusive society. His views were echoed by Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, who urged temple authorities to reconsider these rules in light of changing social values.

However, the issue has sparked debate. Organizations like the Nair Service Society insist on maintaining tradition, while temple management bodies such as the Travancore and Guruvayur Devaswom Boards have indicated they are open to discussions on the matter. Interestingly, temples associated with the Sree Narayana movement, which champions social equality, have already done away with this practice.

At its core, this debate is about more than just dress codes— its about the judicial temperament on balancing the rights of individuals and rights of the religious institutions. in most judicial pronouncements that talk about this particular issue ERP doctrine, constitutional morality, public morality are phrases that are very oftenly used. Here's what it means.

Essential Religious Practices

The essential religious practices doctrine states that a practice is essential when loss of that practice leads to the loss of essential values of the religion itself. It should be practiced as an integral part. The DOERP was designed to guide judicial attempts to balance conflicting rights, as envisaged in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. [4]'The doctrine was first established in the Shrirur mutt [5]case. The doctrine decides which part of the religion is covered under Article 25 (religion freedom) as well as Article 26 (right to religion affairs) of Indian Constitution.'[6] 'Unless such practices are found to constitute an essential and integral part of a religion, their claim for the protection under Article 26 may have to be carefully scrutinized.' [7]

'Test to determine whether a part or practice is essential to a religion is to find out whether the nature of the religion will be changed without that part or practice.' [8] 'Any alterable parts or practices which did not affect the 'core' of the religion were considered to be mere 'embellishments' [9]. 'The concept of essentiality is not itself a determinative factor. It is one of the circumstances to be considered in adjudging whether the particular matters of religion or religious practices or belief are an integral part of the religion: it must be decided whether the practices or matters are considered integral by the community itself.'[10]  The doctrine has been applied in various cases, for instance, while determining the constitutional validity of Talaq e Biddat in the Shayara Bano case[11],  Justice Kurian Joseph in his view after analysing Islamic jurisprudence held that this practice was not an essential aspect of Islam and by implication, did not get constitutional protection.
 

Constitutional Morality V/S Public Morality

 Constitutional Morality means to bow down to the norms of the Constitution and not act in a manner which would become violative of the rule of law of action in an arbitrary manner. It along with the commitment to the Constitution is a facet of Constitutional Morality. [12] This ensures justice, liberty, equality, and protection of certain fundamental rights contrary to the norm of the society. Majoritarian oppression is kept in check by courts upholding constitutional morality as seen in cases like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018),[13] which decriminalized homosexuality.

Social or Public Morality refers to moral principles, norms, and values that a society collectively upholds and expects its members to follow. These moral standards are often influenced by cultural traditions, religious beliefs, historical experiences, and legal frameworks. 'It has always been part of human culture to care about other people.' [14]  Social morality had been prevalent in India where practices like sati practice was also considered morally correct. It is because of practices like this and untouchability that the constitutional and public morality come into tension. It is difficult for a democratic society to balance them out but when public morality clashes with basic rights. However, the judiciary has made efforts to uphold constitutional morality as opposed to social morality when practices infringe basic rights of individuals.

Sabarimala Judgement - A Case Study

The Sabarimala Temple case was concerned with the prohibition placed on the entry of women of the age group of 10–50 years to visit the temple where Lord Ayyappa, the celibate deity, is worshipped. Articles 14, 15, 17 and 25 of the Constitution were challenged as a violation to the restriction. The temple defended it as a religious right, as provided under Article 26, while the petitioners argued against it as discriminatory.

Supreme Court issued 4:1 majority verdict to strike down ban ruling that it violated gender equality and was not an essential religious practice. Most argued that a public temple's religious traditions should yield to constitutional morality. In particular, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud equated the restriction to untouchability as captured under Article 17 for barring women simply because they undergo menstruation was tantamount to a kind of social exclusion. Still, this reasoning is erroneous, for untouchability is the one about the caste discrimination, not about religious customs related to traditions in temples. The judgement did not distinguish between social oppression and faith-based practices.

According to justice Indu Malhotra's dissent which offered a sounder constitutional approach was to say that religious practices, irrespective of being exclusionary, must be given respect except at the cost of public order, morality or health. 'Religious customs and practises cannot be solely tested on the touchstone of Article 14 and the principles of rationality embedded therein.'[15]

Stating that such a restriction at Sabarimala was not a general prohibition on women worshipping Lord Ayyappa, she noted women were allowed to worship in other Ayyappa temples. The practice was only specific to Sabarimala because the deity was celibate, thus making it a denominational religious belief and not a case of gender discrimination. The limited restriction on entry of women in the notified age group does not come within the purview of Article 17 of the Constitution.
 

Analysis Of The Controversy In The Light Of Sabarimala Judgement "Kerala's Dress Code Controversy"

The recent standoff in Kerala has been over traditional temple dress codes, which parallels to the Sabarimala issue, where, in the face of gender equality the Supreme Court had declared the ban unconstitutional. But Justice Indu Malhotra penned a dissenting opinion.

Applying Justice Malhotra's reasoning to the current dress code debate, this author argues that, religious customs such temple dress codes form an organic part of the faith's identity. They should not alter these practices unless they violate fundamental rights. Some may regard the dress code as an important part of worship, fitting as part of the temple's traditions and belonging to the devotees' gestures of respect. Matters of faith should not be brought under the notion of rationality.

It is only when practices are oppressive or against the well-being of individuals may judicial intervention be invoked. The matter is a question of the temple administration and of religious practice, with resort to Article 26(b. They can prescribe attire in the course of their faith. Any interference of the judiciary in this matter that amounts to the infringement of the autonomy as provided in Article 26 will prejudice such autonomy.

Therefore, given that, the temple dress code, an established practice, does not undermine, or oppress individuals and so does not violate constitutional rights. On the other hand, it is not in violation of Arts 25 and 26 as they are reasonable restriction on personal liberty and bearing resemblance with constitutional principles. Bearing in mind that the dress code is only within temple premises, it does not violate public freedoms. Effective as courts, workplaces and Schools to enforce dress, temples can as well to ensure religious sanctity. In addition, the restriction is justified rather than coercive because devotees enter willing, and comply with these norms because it is part of their faith which makes it justified rather than coercive.

End Notes:

1. The Constitution of India 1950, art 2
2. The Constitution of India 1950, art 2
3. 'The Dress Law for Temples Is Just Another Tool to Rein in "provocative" Women' accessed 1 March 2025.
   URL: https://scroll.in/article/801513/tm-krishna
4. Sumit Sonkar, 'Balancing Faith and Equality: Examining the Adequacy of the Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices from Gender Perspectives in India' (2023) 12 Oxford Journal of Law and Religion 121.
5. Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCC 412
6. Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, 1954 SCC OnLine SC 25
7. Durgah Committee v. Syed Hussain Ali, 1961 SCC OnLine SC 12
8. Commr. of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770
9. Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. State of Kerala, (2017) 10 SCC 68
10. Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of U.P., (1997) 4 SCC 606
11. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1
12. Manoj Narula v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0736/2014
13. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1
14. Manupatra, 'Social Morality vs. Constitutional Morality with Special Reference to Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India' accessed 1 March 2025.
    URL: https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details?id=undefined&ifile=undefined