Polity/Society · 27 Aug 2026

Essential Religious Practice doctrine

Consider the following statements regarding the 'Essential Religious Practice' (ERP) doctrine in India:

  1. The doctrine originated from the Supreme Court's 1954 judgment in the Shirur Mutt case.
  2. In its 2022 split verdict on the hijab issue, Justice Hemant Gupta dissented in favour of a student's right to choice, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia upheld the school's uniform policy.
  3. In its 2026 ruling, the Allahabad High Court treated the Karnataka High Court's 2022 verdict on the hijab issue as a binding precedent.
A1 only
B2 only
C1 and 3 only
D1, 2 and 3
This question is based on: The Silence That Wasn't a Right: What the Hijab Ruling Actually Tested
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 27 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

On August 21, 2026, the Allahabad High Court ruled in Sukaina Rizvi v. State of U.P. that wearing a hijab is not an essential religious practice of Islam, upholding a Prayagraj school's uniform dress code and leaning on the Karnataka High Court's 2022 verdict as persuasive authority.

Why for UPSC

UPSC frequently tests precise distinctions in judicial reasoning rather than surface outcomes - here, the difference between binding and persuasive precedent and correctly attributing which judge held which view in a split verdict, is exactly the kind of depth-over-recall trap the exam favours.

Prelims summary

The Essential Religious Practice doctrine (1954, Shirur Mutt case) requires courts to judge whether a practice is essential to a religion. India's top court remains split on hijab-in-schools since 2022 (Gupta upheld uniform policy; Dhulia dissented), leaving High Courts to rule using persuasive, not binding, precedent from each other.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.