Mentor’s comment:
- https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-warp-and-weft-of-religious-liberty/article30551695.ece
- The article discusses the challenges faced by the SC in balancing between the religious freedom granted to an individual as well as guarding the individual against the same in some cases. The article also discusses the options with the SC. One of the options discussed is the adoption of the principle of “anti-exclusion”.
- In the intro, briefly explain the essential practice doctrine in the context of religious freedom in India.
- In the main body explain what is “essential practice” doctrine and its utility in balancing the two freedoms granted to an individual. Besides, explain what is the “anti-exclusion principle” expounded in the Sabarimala verdict. How it is different from the essential practice doctrine. And whether it could be more effective at resolving the conflict between the individual’s liberty and his religious freedom.
- In conclusion, you can write that both the doctrines if applied depending upon the issues involved in the case could effectively help in balancing more effectively.
Comments
7 responses to “Whether the ‘anti-exclusion principle’ expounded in the Sabarimala verdict can be a better alternative to the ‘essential practice’ doctrine in balancing the religious freedom with the individual’s rights. Examine. (15 Marks)”
MOJO0108C00A53108865
Give subheadings in all parts of your answer except intro and conclusion.
Otherwise, your direction of the points will be lost in the crowd.
The overall answer is well attempted.
The best part of your answer is your explanation.
That is superb.
Your points are exhaustive and well placed.
Work on your presentation and underline imp points in your answer.
Avoid lengthy paragraphs
MOJO9c30X00D35455509
The way forward is general and vague.
You can do better than this way forward!
You have to compare the two doctrines in the 2nd part of the answer which you failed to do here.
The answer has only the 1st part of the answer in terms of the demand of the question.
Hence the structure is poor and content lacks depth.
The 1st part is good.
MOJO0102A00A52642901
The balance of the answer is off.
Reason being, here is the mentor comments for this question: “In the main body explain what is “essential practice” doctrine and its utility in balancing the two freedoms granted to an individual. Besides, explain what is the “anti-exclusion principle” expounded in the Sabarimala verdict. How it is different from the essential practice doctrine. And whether it could be more effective at resolving the conflict between the individual’s liberty and his religious freedom.”
So your major discussion has been focusing on the 1st part but the discussion on the 2nd part is completed in just a couple of points and answer ends abruptly and you have copied the conclusion from the mentor comment and there is no way forward.
I will not give marks for exactly copying statements from the article or mentors comments. Minus marks for this.
1st part is over-explained.
MOJO0101500D20984167