Mehta: that became integral or essential religious practice- "otherwise even purely secular practices which are not an essential or an integral part of religion are apt to be clothed with a religious form and may make a claim for being treated as religious practices within the meaning of Art. 26. Similarly, even practices though religious may have sprung from merely superstitious beliefs and may in that sense be extraneous and unessential accretions to religion itself.Unless such practices are found to constitute an essential and integral part of a religion their claim for the protection under Art. 26 may have to be carefully scrutinised; in other words, the protection must be confined to such religious practices as are an essential and an integral part of it and no other."- a secular court would sit in judicial review over faith and belief system and decide whether particular belief is essential and for which the court will have to necessarily examine scripture and several other scriputes in case of internal plurarism and come to a religious conclusion