Philosophy Colloquium

Time & Date: 13:30-15:00, Wednesday 11 November 2026 

Room: AC02-LR103

Refreshments will be provided 

Speaker: Sania Ismailee (BML Munjal University)

Title: Why the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test is the wrong answer to the Indian headscarf case

Abstract: In 2022, Karnataka, a state in South India, introduced a Government Order (GO). The GO allowed college committees to require a uniform. The eventual uniform rules accommodated Sikh turbans as a constitutional right but excluded Muslim headscarves as a symbol disrupting peace and harmony. As a result, several headscarf-wearing Muslim girls dropped out of educational institutions.

The Karnataka High Court denied accommodation to Muslim headscarves. It held that they do not pass the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test. Indian courts use the ERP test as a tool to adjudicate matters of religion. It involves courts in theological questions, such as determining whether practice X is foundationally religious or not. Several legal scholars have criticised the ERP test. Some have proposed alternatives.

Drawing on existing critiques of the ERP and on the political philosophy literature on accommodating religious symbols, I develop a two-pronged alternative to the ERP test. I call it the Sincerity and Disproportionate Burden (SDB) test. Under the SDB test, a religious symbol should be accommodated if two conditions hold. First, the practice is a sincerely held belief. Second, the rule disproportionately burdens that sincerely held belief. The SDB test does not require courts to wear a theologian’s hat.

A significant advantage of the SDB test is that it offers a criterion for thinking about the similarities and the dissimilarities of religious symbols like the turban, the headscarf, and the saffron shawl. The Karnataka High Court arbitrarily clubbed Muslim headscarves and saffron shawls as symbols disrupting peace and harmony.