Essential Religious Practices Test and the First Amendment: A Comparative Analysis of the Free Exercise of Religion in India and the United States

Abraham, Arvind Kurian

doi:10.1007/978-981-16-2175-8_13

Essential Religious Practices Test and the First Amendment: A Comparative Analysis of the Free Exercise of Religion in India and the United States

Arvind Kurian Abraham^7,8

Chapter
First Online: 29 July 2021

186 Accesses

Part of the The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law book series (IYCL)

Abstract

The Supreme Court of India formulated the essential religious practices test to hold that only practices which are essential or integral to a religion are protected by the freedom of religion provisions in the Constitution of India. The test is based on the assumption that judges can interpret religious scriptures and documents to determine if a practice is essential for a religion. The test is also seen as a necessity to prevent vested interests from seeking benefits through the disguise of free exercise claims. Courts in the United States also briefly experimented with a similar test to protect only tenants which are central to a religion from state action, and formulated the test of sincerity to weed out pretentious free exercise claims. However, the free exercise jurisprudence in the US discarded the centrality test in recognition of the problems associated with it. This paper critically analyses the essential religious practices test, compares it with the approach of the US courts while dealing with free exercise claims and provides recommendations for the free exercise jurisprudence in India. The paper also interrogates the premise that judges can interpret scriptures to determine what forms an essential part of a religion by looking at complexities involved in the field of hermeneutics and theology.

Arvind Kurian Abraham—LLM, Harvard Law School (2020), B.A LL.B (Hons), West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (2017). I am grateful to Professor Laurence Tribe, Professor Noah Feldman, Professor Faizan Mustafa for their comments on this topic, and to Ms. Jane Bestor for her comments and encouragement. I am especially indebted to Professor Mark Tushnet for his detailed and valuable comments on the previous draft of this paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Nicholas P Wolterstorff, ‘Christianity and Human Rights’ in John Witte Jr & M. Christian Green (eds) Religion and Human Rights: An Introduction (OUP 2011) 4.
2.
Robert John Araujo, ‘Our Debt to de Vitoria: A Catholic Foundation of Human Rights’ (2012) 10 Ave Maria L Rev, 313, 314.
3.
Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (OUP 1972) 80.
4.
Constitution of India, January 1950, Art 25.
5.
ibid.
6.
Lok Sabha, Constituent Assembly Debates (Proceedings)—Volume VII, 7 December 1948 http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Debates/cadebatefiles/C07121948.html (accessed 16 June 2020).
7.
Constitution of India, January 1950, Art 25.
8.
ibid.
9.
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt AIR 1954 SC 282.
10.
ibid at 291.
11.
ibid.
12.
ibid at 293.
13.
ibid at 290.
14.
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v State of Bombay AIR 1954 SC 388.
15.
ibid at 393.
16.
Mohd Hanif Quareshi and Others v State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731.
17.
ibid at 739.
18.
Durgah Committee, Ajmer v Syed Hussain Ali (1962) 1 SCR 383.
19.
ibid at 395–396.
20.
Sastri Yagnapurushadji v Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya AIR 1966 SC 1119.
21.
ibid at 1137.
22.
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (1983) 4 SCC 522.
23.
ibid at 532.
24.
ibid.
25.
Commissioner of Police v Acharya Jagdishwarananda Avadhuta (2004) 12 SCC 770.
26.
ibid at 782.
27.
ibid at 783.
28.
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta v Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (1983) 4 SCC 522.
29.
Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1.
30.
Durgah Committee, Ajmer v Syed Hussain Ali (1962) 1 SCR 383.
31.
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (n 9).
32.
Indian Young Lawyer’s Association v State of Kerala (2019) 11 SCC 1.
33.
Gautam Bhatia, ‘Freedom from community: Individual rights, group life, state authority and religious freedom under the Indian Constitution’, (2016) 5 Global Constitutionalism, 351, 365.
34.
Framing of India’s Constitution: Select Documents, Volume II (B. Shiva Rao et al. (eds)) (NM Tripathi 1967) 264–270.
35.
Mohammed Fasi v Superintendent of Police (1985)ILLJ Ker 463.
36.
Faizan Mustafa and Jagteshwar Singh Sohi, ‘Freedom of Religion in India: Current Issues and Supreme Court Acting as Clergy’ (2018) 2017 BYU L Rev 915, 934.
37.
Dr M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 360.
38.
On 6 December 1992, Hindu fundamentalists destroyed the Babri Masjid, leading to violence across India. The fundamentalist organizations insisted that the mosque was sitting on the site of an ancient Hindu temple. In response to this crisis, the Parliament of India enacted the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 to authorize the Government to acquire the disputed property. The Act was challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it violated the freedom of religion of Muslims.
39.
See Dr M. Ismail Faruqui (n 37) at 418.
40.
Ronojoy Sen, ‘The Indian Supreme Court and the quest for a ‘rational’ Hinduism’ (2010) 1 South Asian History and Culture 86, 93.
41.
ibid at 86.
42.
US Constitution, Amendment I.
43.
Jared A Goldstein, ‘Is There a "Religious Question" Doctrine? Judicial Authority to Examine Religious Practices and Beliefs’ (2005) 54 Cath. U L Rev 497, 540.
44.
Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law (Foundation Press 2nd ed, 1988) at 1232.
45.
Jonathan Weiss, ‘Privilege, Posture and Protection Religion in the Law’ (1964) 73 Yale LJ 593, 623.
46.
Eugene Gressman and Angela C Carmella, ‘The RFRA Revision of the Free Exercise Clause’ (1996) 57 Ohio St LJ 65, 75.
47.
ibid at 77.
48.
Sherbert v Verner 374 US 398 (1963).
49.
ibid at 404.
50.
John Witte, Jr and Joel A Nichols, Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment (OUP 4th ed, 2016) at 123.
51.
Tribe (n 45) at 1257.
52.
Ira C Lupu, ‘Where Rights Begin: The Problem of Burdens on the Free Exercise of Religion’ (1989) 102 Harv L Rev 933, 935.
53.
Douglas Laycock, Religious Liberty (Eerdmans 2018) 354.
54.
Wisconsin v Yoder 406 US 205 (1972).
55.
ibid at 215.
56.
ibid at 214.
57.
ibid.
58.
Employment Div, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v Smith 494 US 872 (1990).
59.
ibid at 879.
60.
ibid at 890.
61.
Michael W. McConnell, ‘Free Exercise Revisionism and the Smith Decision’ (1990) 57 U Chi L Rev 1109, 1153.
62.
Laycock (n 55) at 3.
63.
The term of ‘compelling interest test’ is used interchangeably with the ‘strict scrutiny’ test.
64.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 USC § 2000bb(b) (1993).
65.
ibid.
66.
Gressman (n 47) at 97.
67.
Bette Novit Evans, ‘Constitutional Language and Judicial Interpretations of the Free Exercise Clause’ in Derek H Davis ed, The Oxford Handbook of Church and State in the United States (OUP 2010) 154.
68.
Bruce N Bagni, ‘Discrimination in the Name of the Lord: A Critical Evaluation of Discrimination by Religious Organizations’ (1979) 79 Colum L Rev 1514, 1549.
69.
Sequoyah v Tennessee Valley Authority 620 F.2d 1159 (1980).
70.
ibid at 1164–1165.
71.
ibid at 1162.
72.
Badoni v Higginson 638 F.2d 172 (1980).
73.
Laurie Ensworth, ‘Native American Free Exercise Rights to the Use of Public Lands’ (1983) 63 BU L Rev 141, 146.
74.
ibid at 152.
75.
Thomas v Review Bd of Indiana Employment Sec Div 271 Ind 233, 243 (1979).
76.
Eddie C Thomas v Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division 450 US 707 (1981).
77.
ibid at 713.
78.
ibid at 715.
79.
ibid.
80.
ibid.
81.
Lyng v Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association485 US 439 (1988).
82.
ibid at 448.
83.
ibid at 474.
84.
ibid.
85.
ibid at 458.
86.
Employment Div Dept of Human Resources of Oregon v Smith 494 US 872, 887 (1990).
87.
ibid.
88.
ibid § 2000 cc-5(7)(A) (2000).
89.
Kent Greenawalt, Exemptions: Necessary, Justified or Misguided? (Harvard University Press 2016) 143.
90.
Bryant v Gomez 46 F.d3 948, 949 (9th Cir 1995).
91.
Greenawalt (n 91) at 143.
92.
Gregory Houston Holt v Ray Hobbs 574 US 352 (2015).
93.
ibid at 360.
94.
ibid at 362.
95.
Sequoyah v Tennessee Valley Authority 620 F.2d 1159 (1980).
96.
Badoni v Higginson 638 F.2d 172 (1980).
97.
Ensworth (n 75) at 158.
98.
Durgah Committee, Ajmer v Syed Hussain Ali(1962) 1 SCR 383, 396.
99.
Michael W McConnell, ‘Accommodation of Religion’ 1985 Sup Ct Rev 1, 37.
100.
ibid.
101.
Kent Greenawalt, Religion and the Constitution, vol 1 (Princeton University Press 2009) 110.
102.
United States v Ballard 322 US 78 (1944).
103.
John T Jr Noonan, ‘How Sincere Do You Have to Be to Be Religious’ (1988) U Ill L Rev 713, 715.
104.
ibid at 716.
105.
See Ballard (n 104) at 87.
106.
ibid at 89.
107.
Greenawalt (n 103) at 117.
108.
ibid.
109.
Stephen Senn, ‘The Prosecution of Religious Fraud’ (1990) 17 Fla St U L Rev 325, 342–334.
110.
ibid.
111.
Senn (n 111) at 345.
112.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc v J Roger Barber 650 F.2d 430 (2nd Cir, 1981).
113.
ibid at 441.
114.
Wisconsin v Yoder 406 U.S 205, 235 (1972).
115.
Senn (n 111) at 345.
116.
United States v Quaintance, 608 F.3d 717 (10th Cir, 2010).
117.
ibid at 722.
118.
Kevin L Brady, ‘Religious Sincerity and Imperfection: Can Lapsing Prisoners Recover Under RFRA and RLUIPA?’ (2011) 78 The University of Chicago Law Review. 1431, 1452.
119.
ibid.
120.
Lupu (n 54) at 954.
121.
ibid at 957.
122.
ibid.
123.
Burwell v Hobby Lobby 573 US 682, 771 (2014).
124.
Khagesh Gautam, ‘Protecting Free Exercise of Religion under the Indian and the United States Constitutions: The Doctrine of Essential Practices and the Centrality Test’ (2014) 8 Vienna J on Int'l Const L 305, 333.
125.
Gregory P Magarian, ‘How to Apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to Federal Law without Violating the Constitution’ (2001) 99 Mich L Rev 1903, 1960.
126.
Goldstein (n 44) at 538.
127.
ibid at 539.
128.
ibid at 540.
129.
Gregory Leyh, Dworkin's Hermeneutics, 39 Mercer L. Rev. 851, 854 (1988).
130.
ibid.
131.
ibid.
132.
ibid at 27.
133.
Armand L Mauss, ‘The Fading of the Pharaohs' Curse: The Decline and Fall of the Priesthood Ban Against Blacks in the Mormon Church’ (1981)14 Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 10,10.
134.
Michael Pye, ‘Comparative Hermeneutics: A Brief Statement’ (1980) 7 Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 25, 27.
135.
Frank J Hoffman, ‘Evam Me Sutam: Oral Tradition in Nikaya Buddhism’ in Jeffrey R Timm (ed), Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia (State University of New York Press 1992) 207.
136.
Thomas B Coburn, ‘"Scripture" in India: Towards a Typology of the Word in Hindu Life’ (1984) 52 Journal of the American Academy of Religion 435, 436.
137.
William A Graham, Beyond The Written Word: Oral Aspects Of Scripture In The History Of Religion (CUP 1987) 68.
138.
Coburn (n 138) at 437.
139.
ibid.
140.
ibid at 438.
141.
ibid.
142.
Theos Bernard, Hindu Philosophy (Motilal Banarsidass Publishers 1996) 7.
143.
David Carpenter, ‘Bhartrhari and the Veda’ in Jeffrey R. Timm (ed), Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia(State University of New York Press 1992)17.
144.
ibid at 19.
145.
ibid.
146.
ibid at 20.
147.
ibid.
148.
Wade T Wheelock, ‘The Problem of Ritual Language: From Information to Situation’ (1982) 50 Journal of the American Academy of Religion, at 49, 50.
149.
ibid at 51.
150.
John E Cort, ‘Svetambar Murtipujak: Jain Scripture in A Performative Context’ in Jeffrey R Timm (ed), Texts in Context: Traditional Hermeneutics in South Asia (State University of New York Press 1992) 172.
151.
ibid at 173.
152.
ibid.
153.
John E Cort, ‘The Intellectual Formation of a Jain Monk: A Śvetāmbara Monastic Curriculum’ (2001) 29 Journal of Indian Philosophy 327, 340.
154.
Jonathan Z Smith, Imagining Religion: From Babylon To Jonestown (University of Chicago Press 1982) 49.
155.
ibid.
156.
ibid.
157.
ibid at 50.
158.
Goldstein (n 44) at 538.
159.
Freeman v Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles 924 So. 2d 48 (Fla Dist Ct App 2006).
160.
Peter W Beauchamp, ‘Misinterpreted Justice: Problems with the Use of Islamic Legal Experts in U.S. Trial Courts’ (2010) 55 NY L Sch L Rev 1098, 1111.
161.
ibid at 1112.
162.
ibid.
163.
Cecelia Lynch, ‘A Neo-Weberian Approach to Religion in International Politics’ (2009) 1 International Theory, at 381, 400.
164.
ibid.
165.
ibid.
166.
Burwell v Hobby Lobby 573 U.S. 682 (2014).
167.
Bhatia (n 33) at 366.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, USA
Arvind Kurian Abraham
West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, India
Arvind Kurian Abraham

Authors

Arvind Kurian Abraham
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arvind Kurian Abraham .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India
Prof. Mathew John
Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India
Dr. Vishwas H. Devaiah
BML Munjal Law School, Gurugram, Haryana, India
Dr. Pritam Baruah
Jindal Global Law School, O. P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, India
Dr. Moiz Tundawala
Centre for Comparative Law, National Law University, Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India
Dr. Niraj Kumar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Abraham, A.K. (2021). Essential Religious Practices Test and the First Amendment: A Comparative Analysis of the Free Exercise of Religion in India and the United States. In: John, M., Devaiah, V.H., Baruah, P., Tundawala, M., Kumar, N. (eds) The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law 2019. The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2175-8_13

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2175-8_13
Published: 29 July 2021
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-2174-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-2175-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)