The Constitution of India guarantees to citizens the Right to freedom of religion which includes freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion with reasonable restrictions. The secular activities associated with freedom of religion are not protected from interference by the state. The judiciary has tested several customs and religious practices on the basis of theory of essential religious practice which it evolved in 1954 to determine whether a religious practice was protected under Article 25 and Article 26 of Indian Constitution. The judiciary made a distinction between practices essential and integral to a religion and the practices which are religious but not essential. The practices under this doctrine were tested by the courts on the basis of interpretation of particular religious texts and also by looking into the empirical evidences of the practice in question. This wearing of the theological mantle and inconsistent approach of the judiciary has led to severe criticism of the doctrine. Scholars are of the view that if the Courts started enquiring and deciding the rationality of a particular religious practice, then there might be confusion and the religious practice would become what the courts wishes the practice to be. Therefore, courts should decide the validity of any religious practice on the basis of Constitutional standards. Therefore, this paper aims to analyse the role of Foreign and Indian Courts in the development of Essentiality doctrine in the light of various judicial pronouncements.