This article is written by Sachi Ashok Bhiwgade and further updated by Prashant Prasad. The article provides in-depth analysis about one of the fundamental rights i.e. right to freedom of religion, which is being provided under Article 25 to Article 28 of the Indian Constitution. Additionally, the article deals with the analysis of each provision relating to the right to freedom of religion and also covers the landmark cases associated with it.

This article has been published by Shashwat Kaushik.

Introduction

India is the most populated country of the world and it is considered as a culturally diverse country. Every individual residing in the country does have their own sets of a belief and practice with regards a specific religion and therefore, the matter pertaining to religion is considered to be of a paramount importance in a country like in India. In India every individual does have a right to choose and practice the religion of their own choice. Also, the right to freedom of religion is considered to be a fundamental right as provided under Articles 25, 26, 27, and 28 of the Indian Constitution. We all are well versed with the fact that the Indian Constitution stresses on the secular model and it further provides that every person of the country has the right to choose and practise the religion of one’s choice without any inhibition. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by way of many judgements, has ruled that ‘secularism’ is the basic feature of the Indian Constitution and, therefore, it must not be infringed or violated. There are different personal laws in our country that govern the different religions that are being followed by the people throughout the territory. However, an exception to this is the states of Goa as well as Uttarakhand which have adopted the Uniform Civil Code and therefore, the peoples residing in those states are governed by the uniform laws in certain matters, irrespective of religion. 

The right to freedom of religion as enshrined under Articles 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution ensures that any right relating to the freedom of religion must remain protected. These rights related to religious freedom are not only available to the citizens of a country but to every other individual who is living in India. All these constitutional provisions which are related to the right to freedom of a religion ensures that any religious practice must remain protected from the interference of the State. However, it is often seen that the interpretation of the provision relating to religious freedom raises several concerns, and to eliminate those concerns judiciary is playing a crucial role so that the religious harmony among all the peoples in the country remains there. 

Explanation of the right to freedom of religion

Before directly plunging into the explanation of the right to freedom of religion let us take an instance in which there are two friends named ‘Gaurav’ and ‘Sourav’. Gaurav encountered one question and the same question he asked to Saurav i.e. what does the right to freedom of religion mean. Sourav replied to Gaurav that the right to freedom of a religion means that every individual does have a right to choose and practice the religion of one’s choice. 

In India the right to freedom of religion is being recognised as a fundamental right and it ensures that every religion is equivalent in the eyes of state and judiciary. Therefore, any kind of discrimination based on religion is prohibited. If the said right is contravened, then the Indian Constitution also provides a mechanism for that individual whose right is violated to avail remedies.

Illustration – In Hindu religion every person is entitled to go to a temple of their choice and worship over there. However, if there exists some situation due to which they are prohibited from entering into that particular Temple then one can directly approach the court of a law in order to secure their religious freedom. 

Under such a situation, The court may make necessary orders to allow that individual to enter into the temple and worship in accordance with the belief and practice of that particular religion. As the right to freedom of religion is a fundamental right and no person should be deprived of this right except certain reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order morality and health. 

After discussing a bit about the right to freedom of religion. It’s time for us to move further and look at the various constitutional provisions related to the right to freedom of religion. 

Different constitutional provisions regarding the right to freedom of religion

We must have wondered about the exact provisions that are available in the Constitution of India that protects the individual’s right to freedom of religion. So, let’s eradicate that subsiting thought and its time for us to explore these provisions, which are as follows – 

• Article 25: This Article ensures that there must be a freedom of conscience, free profession, practice, and propagation of religion of one’s choice.
• Article 26: This Article provides liberty for the management of religious affairs.
• Article 27: By virtue this Article prohibition is being imposed on the payment of taxes for the promotion of any particular religion. 
• Article 28: Under this Article certain restrictions have been imposed on impartation of religious instruction or practice of religious activities in the educational institutions. 

After reading these provisions we must have got a fair idea that the sole purpose of these articles is to protect the individual’s right to freedom of religion. But, it’s not the end, we are at the verge of delving into each of these provisions one-by-one in order to understand them in a better way. 

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution

Consider an instance in which there is a queue and a lot of people are standing with the sole purpose of contributing some amount for charity. Now, restitute the word charity with religious freedom and the word peoples with the above-mentioned provisions. Is it difficult for you to understand? Let’s simplify it a bit more. Since, we’ve discussed that there are various provisions that guarantee the right to freedom of religion and all of these provisions are like a queue which contributes towards the protection of religious freedom and Article 25 stands in the beginning of that queue. 

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution provides that every person is entitled to freedom of conscience and do have a right to profess, practice, and propagate the religion of one’s choice. However, this right is not an absolute right and certain restrictions have been imposed subject to public order, morality and health. 

It has further been provided under Article 25 that it’s working shall neither in anyway affect the law that is already in existence nor it shall in anyway prevent the state from enacting any kind of a law on following matters – 

• Regulating or limiting any economic, financial, political, or any other secular activity associated with religious practice.
• Administration of any social welfare and reforms associated with it. 
• Inaugurating any Hindu religious institutions of public character for all the Hindus irrespective of their classes and sections. 

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution grants freedom with respect to conscience, free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. Therefore it is important for us to understand what is the nature of the free conscience, free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. 

In order to have a complete understanding with respect to this particular provision, It’s time for us to directly plunge into the analysis of Article 25 in which we will discuss every important aspect of this Article in a detailed and bifurcated manner. 

Analysis of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution

Freedom of conscience

It has been observed by the various courts in India that ‘freedom of conscience’ is a freedom that allows an individual to have any belief with respect to the matter of religion or morality. It provides complete liberty to the citizens to shape any form of connection with God in any manner that the person may deems fit. 

Therefore, it can be well inferred that Article 25 grants any person the right to entail any kind of a belief with regards to their religion but it must not be in contravention to the public order, morality, health and the other provisions of Part III of the Indian Constitution.

For example- Any person can choose their religious leader or priest and they can perform their religious practice in accordance with their guidance. While performing their religious activity, In accordance with those guidance as delivered by their religious leader or priest any form of connection can be made to the God. However, while performing those religious activities it must not infringe the public order, morality, health and the other provisions that are included under Part III of the Indian Constitution. 

Now that we’ve discussed freedom of conscience it is essential for us to understand about freedom to profess religion that has been explained below. 

Freedom to profess religion

The term religion has not been defined in the Indian Constitution and this is one such term which is hard to give any kind of rigid definition. However, the Apex court on many instances has defined the term ‘religion’ in a wide way, by stating that ‘religion’ can be described as a matter of faith that is related to a particular religious community or an individual and is not theistic. Moreover, different religions in our country like India, involve different systems of beliefs and doctrine that are being regarded and supported by the peoples who followed that particular religion. 

However, it is important for us to note that religion is not only confined to the system of a belief. It may include certain ethical rules, ceremonies, different modes of worship, and observances which are considered to be sacrosanct, vital and integral part of that religion. Therefore, an inference can be drawn by stating that religion is a matter of faith and every person has the right to have such religious belief and they can practice that belief in any way as prescribed by that particular religion. 

In the case of Shri A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (1996), it was observed by Justice Hansaria that our constitution’s framers used the term ‘religion’ in Articles 25 and 26 in a sense so as to convey the word ‘dharma’. Further the present case, provided the difference between religion and dharma by stating that “Religion is enriched by visionary methodology and theology, whereas dharma blooms in the realm of direct experience. Religion may inspire one to build a fragile, mortal home for God; dharma helps one to recognize the immortal shrine in the heart.” 

In the English language the term ‘profess’ means to affirm one’s faith and belief openly. Therefore, it can be said that the right to profess one’s religion means to express the ideology of religion by way of different activities such as taking out of a religious procession, worshipping at a public place, and wearing any specific garments that come within the ambit of the profession of that specific religion. The freedom to profess religion also means to declare openly and freely one’s faith and belief. 

For example- the Indian Constitution recognises the wearing as well as carrying of ‘kirpans’ as a profession of the Sikh religion.

The right to hold religious processions and gatherings is allowed as it comes under the ambit of Article 25(1). However, holding of such a procession and gathering must be subject to public order and morality. Various public authorities, for instance ‘police’ do have the power to regulate such religious activities. For conducting such religious activity a particular route and timing may be provided by the public authority. If there is any chance for the breach of public peace due to such processing or gathering then under those instances the magistrate can even impose a ban on such procession or gathering.

We must have heard about the case of Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors (1987), In this case three students during the school assembly merely stood and respect but they did not sing the national anthem. Therefore, they were expelled from the school on the grounds of non-singing of a national anthem. It was contended on behalf of petitioner that the right to freedom of religion is a fundamental right as enshrined under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. It is worth noting that the court ruled in favour of students. The court observed that the right to freedom of religion also includes the right to profess the religion of one’s choice. As a result, it was concluded by the court that expulsion of students from the school based on the facts of the case is not valid.  

Along with the freedom of conscience, and freedom to profess religion of one’s choice. Every individual has the freedom to practice their religion. This freedom is an essential aspect of Article 25 of the Indian Constitution and it has been described below. 

Freedom to practise religion

From the bare perusal of Article 25(1), one can easily infer that liberty has been provided to an individual to to follow the religion of one’s choice. Apart from that we can also observe that this Article provides that an individual is having a right to freely carry out their religious duties, rights and rituals to express the ideas of the religion in which the individual believes.

We all know that India is a culturally diverse country and there are different communities residing in India. It can be observed by us that certain religious groups prefer to wear distinct clothes. Therefore, wearing the clothes of specific design and style by a specific religious community can be said to be protected under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution and it forms the part of freedom to practice religion. 

The first case that arose for seeking protection under Article 25(1) is the case of State of Bombay vs. Narasu Appa Mali (1951). In the present case there was the enactment of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriage Act, 1946 and the said Act prohibited the practice of a bigamy among Hindus in the state. However, on the other hand the community of a Muslim who were practising polygamy were left out of the operation of the said Act. Therefore, based on the irregularity in the applicability of the Act with respect to religion, the appellant named Shri Narasu Appa Mali approached before the Bombay High Court with the main contention that the said Act abridges the plaintiff’s right to freedom of religion. Among all the contentions which were raised by the plaintiff in the present case one was that, the enactment in question created discrimination among Hindu as well as Muslims with respect to the religious practices. 

Therefore, the plaintiff wanted the court to declare the Act in question as void and unconstitutional. The court after considering the issues which were present in the instant case found that the right which is being claimed by the plaintiff under Article 25(1) is not an absolute right. Hence, if any matter related to religion violates the public order of the society then one cannot claim protection under Article 25(1) with respect to that religious matter. 

The court in the present case further clarified that the protection granted by virtue of Article 25 and Article 26 is not merely confined to religious belief but it also includes the actions that are performed in the name of that particular religion. The actions performed may include rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship that are regarded as an essential part of the religion. Whether certain religious practice is essential or not with respect to that particular religion is to be decided by the court while taking into consideration the belief and practice of that religion. 

Having discussed the essential aspect of the right to profess religion. The time has arrived to go ahead with the analysis of Article 25 and discuss the freedom to propagate religion. 

Freedom to propagate religion

Is there any need for promoting a particular religion for securing religious freedom? The Answer to this question depends upon the belief and practice of that religion. If we look into the literal meaning of what actually the ‘propagation’ means then it can be concluded that propagation basically means to promote something. In respect of religious matters, the right to propagate means to spread the views of one’s religion. However, it is important to note that such propagation must be done without any undue influence or element of coercion. 

For e.g. – We often observe that certain seminars and workshops are conducted in various parts of our country to promote and spread the ideas of a particular religion. However, no person is forced to attend those seminars or and workshops, and discretion is being provided to the people if they really want to attend those seminars and workshops or not.  

In recent periods, it can be observed that in the name of propagation of religion certain instances of convincing others about the belief and practice of a distinct religion have been evoked. Those instances can eventually lead to the production of ill feeling and violence among the different members of the society. Under such circumstances it is the duty of a state to balance the right to propagate religion with the rights of the general public. Therefore, it can be said that although Article 25 of the Indian Constitution provides the right to propagate religion of one’s choice but such a right is subject to public order and it is not an absolute right. 

At this point it would be interesting to discuss the landmark case of Ramji Lal Modi vs. TheState of Uttar Pradesh (1957), in which the appellant used to work for a journal. That journal was entirely dedicated towards the well-being and protection of cows. In that particular journal an article was published by the appellant. The Allahabad High Court found that the article in question was published by the appellant with intention to provoke the sentiments of a particular religious community. As a result, the court fined the appellant under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now, Section 299 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023) and was also convicted for the said offense.

Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court of India. It was argued before the Apex Court that the right to speech and expression that is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution is violated because of Section 295A of the IPC (now Section 299 of the BNS). 

The contention of the appellant was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and it was ruled by the court that, although the right to freedom of speech and expression is there but it must be subject to the Article 19(2) which provides reasonable restrictions and it must be exercised for the maintenance of public order. The Apex Court, while rejecting the contentions observed that Section 295A of the IPC (now Section 299 of the BNS) does not penalise in every instance. However, under this Section such an act must be penalised which is committed with the deliberate and malicious intention to provoke the religious sentiment of some religious group. 

After discussing the various freedoms that are granted under the Indian Constitution by virtue of Article 25. It is important for us to note that the court will not enforce every religious practice but it will only enforce those practices that form the essentiality of that particular religion. The essentiality of any practice is decided by the court and the decision by the court is predominantly based on a test named ‘essential religious practice test’. 

Essential religious practice test under the Indian Constitution

Every religion has certain religious practices and one question might be wandering around our mind is whether such a religious practice is essential or not. The essentiality of any religious practice can be determined on the basis of the essential religious practice test. 

The essential practice test is basically a set of standards which is used by the Judiciary to decide whether such religious practice is protected under the Indian Constitution or not. This test was evolved in the case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954), it was ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case that, in order to protect the practices that are an integral part of the religion, the court will only enforce essential religious practice, and not each and every practice. The court further observe that in every religion there are certain rituals which are considered to be an essential religious practice, such as – 

• In Hindu religion, specific ceremonies must be performed for the solemnization of marriage and it includes the ceremony of Saptapadi. 
• In Muslim religion offering prayer at a mosque is considered to be essential religious practice.
• Wearing a turban by Sikhs is recognised by the Indian Constitution and is considered to be an essential practice.

We all are well versed with the fact that every religion has certain essential religious practices which need to be followed under some special circumstances. However if there exists a situation in which there are some supervining factors that interfere with such essential religious practice then what can be done? 

Under those instances, the essential religious practice test protects the essential practice of the religion from any kind of intervention. The Judiciary has been provided with the power to properly evaluate the belief and practices of that religion and determine if the practice in question is truly essential practice or not. However, many times the court’s power to determine the essentiality of any religion is being criticized by the law expert by stating that determining the essentiality of any religion is beyond the competency of the court. 

But, one fact cannot be denied by anyone is that the Judiciary is playing a pivotal role in eradicating the social evil that exists in our society related to religion and hence, social harmony can be achieved to a greater extent by exercising this test by the judiciary.

After analysing the various important aspects of Article 25 it can be said by us that the rights guaranteed under this particular provision is not an absolute right. It can also be observed by us that certain restrictions are provided on those rights. Therefore, it’s time for us to move ahead with the analysis and get to acquaint ourselves with the various restrictions that are imposed on this Article. 

Restrictions that are imposed on the exercise of the right to freedom of religion

Before discussing the various restrictions that are available to the right to freedom of religion, Let’s discuss an instance. Suppose a religious procession was carried out by a religious community and as a result there was a huge traffic jam and disturbance to the public order. Under that particular instance police authority intervened and provided certain guidelines to continue with that procession. Under these instances it can be observed that the guidelines that were provided by the police authority can be seen as a restriction that was imposed on the exercise of the right to freedom of religion. 

Therefore, it is crystal clear to all of us that the right to freedom of a religion is not an absolute right and in certain instances restrictions can be imposed. So let’s discuss one-by-one about the various restrictions that are imposed on religious freedom. 

Public order and morality 

Public order

One of the most important conditions for the existence of freedom and proper working in a society is that there should be peace and order in that particular society. It is the duty of the State to ensure that peace and order exist in the society so that everyone can enjoy the right without any kind of impediments. Therefore, if any person exercises his/her right in a way that undermines the peace and tranquillity of the society then under such a situation the State can exercise its power to limit it. 

As a result, any kind of religious gathering or procession, if it is performed in a public place then under such a situation State has been provided with the authority to regulate those activities. Moreover, if there exist some supervening factors or an imminent emergency then the State can even impose a ban on such a religious activity if it threatens the public peace. 

The State can even declare certain activities as an offence if such activities try to hurt the religious sentiments of any class of people, or if the activities promote disunity among different groups. In view of the existence of certain religious activities that might disturb the public order, many states have enacted certain legislation to curb those activities. Therefore, certain religious activities such as cow slaughtering or propagation of any religion with the intention to commit fraud has already been prohibited by the special legislation in many states, as these religious activities might disturb the law and order in society.

Illustration – There was an inauguration of a temple due to which a tent was pitched in such a way that it covered half of the nearby road. The religious ceremony for the inauguration of that tent was scheduled to take place for 11 days. Due to the tent, which was pitched on the side of the road there used to be a huge chaos and traffic jam as very little space was left for vehicles to pass. Therefore, under these instances the police authority can make appropriate orders to secure public order in the society. 

Therefore it can be said that restriction can be imposed on the exercises of a right to freedom of religion if such practice detters the public order of the society. 

Forced conversion is not allowed

The Indian Constitution confers the right on every individual to profess, practice and propagate the religion of one’s choice. However, nobody can be forced to follow their religious belief and, consequently, no one can be forced to practise any religion against the choice of that person. 

In the case of Rev. Stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (1977), two Acts were in question i.e. the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967. Both of these Acts were challenged on the ground that it contravenes the fundamental right of an individual guaranteed and Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. Forced conversion of a person to one’s own religion was one of the major issues present during that particular time and to curb those practices both the Acts were passed. The petitioner in the present case contended that the right to freedom of religion also includes the practice of converting others into their own religion. It was further contended by the appellant that the State Legislature is incompetent to enact such laws as it does not fall within the ambit of Entry 1 of List II and Entry 1 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while rejecting the contention of the appellant ruled that both the Acts fall within Entry 1 of List II. The court observed that these Acts are enacted with the purpose to avoid any disturbance in this society by prohibiting the act of forcible conversion. Therefore, the court upheld the validity of both the Acts and it was ruled that both the Acts were passed in the interest of justice.

Morality

The fundamental purpose of any religion is to secure and promote moral behaviour. However, It can be noticed that every activity of religion cannot be considered as moral and some activities can eventually turn to be immoral as well. Under those instances, the state has been provided with an authority to impose, ban and regulate such immoral actions, so that the morals of society could be protected. Some of the religious practices have been recognised as immoral by the court of law and it has been prohibited such as devadasi system, sati system, gambling on the day of Diwali, etc.

Therefore, it can be said that the State has implemented various restrictions. All these restrictions were intended to secure public peace so that the instance of a violences must not be there in the society while exercising the rights of different religious practice in a different public places. 

The courts have also upheld the restrictions that can be imposed on religious freedom and it can be well understood by taking in account the case of Public Prosecutor vs. P. Ramaswami (1963). In this case there was an instance of deliberately publishing an article with the malicious intention to provoke the sentiment of other communities by the author. In this article certain parts of the holy Quran were criticized. Apart from this the author concluded the entire article in a very critical way by commenting on Allah. The Madras High Court After taking into consideration the facts and issues associated with the case found that the author of the article is guilty of an offence under Section 295A of the IPC (now Section 299 of the BNS). The court ruled that due regards must be given to every religious sentiment and feelings belonging to the peoples of different religions.

Further, in the case of Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta & Ors. vs. Commissioner Of Police, Calcutta & Anr. (1983), also known as ‘the first Anand Marga case’. In this case an order was issued by the police to prohibit tandava dance that was performed in the public place. Tandava dance can be regarded as a religious gathering or a procession that involves carrying of different kinds of lethal weapons and human skulls. 

It was ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the order which was issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) by the Calcutta Police Commissioner was completely valid. It was observed by the court that possessing such dangerous weapons like daggers and human skulls and performing that dance in a public place creates danger to public order and morality of the society. 

From the above discussion it can be said that restriction can be imposed on the exercise of religious freedom in the interest of public order and morality. Apart from that it is also important to take this fact into consideration that religious freedom must be exercised while complying with the legal requirement. How such religious practice should comply with the legal requirements are discussed below. 

Legal requirements

Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution ensures that every person has the right to freedom of a religion. However, in spite of the existence of religious freedom under this Article. It is further clarified under the same Article that the existence of such religious freedom must be subject to the public order, morality, health and to the other provisions that are present under Part III of the Indian Constitution. The Indian Constitution, by way of its restrictions, brings out the principle that every religious sentiments or activities are not entitled for an absolute protection. 

In the case of State of Bombay vs. Narasu Appa Mali (1951), it was ruled by the Bombay High Court that, although, Article 25 of the Indian Constitution provides the right to freedom of religion however, such a religious freedom is not an absolute right. It was further observed by the court in this case that the right to freedom of religion is firstly subject to the public order, morality and health and secondly this right must be subject to the provisions that are present under Part III of the Indian Constitution.

Since, we’ve discussed the restrictions that can be imposed with respect to legal requirements. Let’s go further and discuss a few more restrictions. 

Regulation of economic, financial, political, and other secular activities related to religion 

The various religious practices can be regulated by the State by virtue of the Article 25(2)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The practices may include any kind of a political, financial, economical or any other secular activities. Under certain instances, it becomes difficult for the State to figure out whether any activity will fall under ‘religious practice’ or else any other financial, political, or secular activities related to the religion. The freedom to practise religion only extends to those activities that form the essence of that particular religion and protection does not extend to such cases that do not form the essence of religion.

In the case of Adelaide Company of Jehovah’s Witnesses vs. The Commonwealth (1943) 67 CLR 116, the court observed that carrying out anti-war propaganda in the name of a religion must not be allowed, when a nation is at war. Therefore, it can be said that any kind of activity related to politics that has arised out of a certain religious belief of a particular organisation cannot be held protected under the Indian Constitution.

Apart from the authority that is provided to the state to regulate economic, financial, political and other secular activities related to religion. Certain more authority has been provided to the state which acts as restriction on the exercise of a right to freedom of religion. Therefore, in the next part we are going to see how for securing social welfare and social reform certain laws can be enacted which might impose restrictions on certain religious practices. 

Social welfare and social reforms

It has been stated under Article 25(2)(b) that the State has the authority to enact laws for social welfare as well as for social reform. Therefore, religious freedom is subject to social reforms. The state has been provided with the authority by virtue of Article 25(2)(b) of the Indian Constitution, to enact the laws in order to eradicate such social practices that act as an impediment in the country’s overall development. 

In the case of State of Bombay vs. Varasu Bapamali AIR 1953 Bom 84. The Act in question prohibited the practice of bigamy and such prohibition was held to be constitutionally valid by the Bombay High Court. The court observed that practice of polygamy is not an essential religious practice and therefore, it can be regulated by law. 

Moreover, Article 25 also grants the right to all the Hindus to enter into any temple for the purpose of worship irrespective of their class and status in the society. Such a provision makes sure that the right of an individual to enter in any temple must remain unobstructed and it is immaterial that from which caste or class that person belongs to. The Hindu temples such as Sikh Gurudrawa, Jain temples, Budh Vihars, etc. should remain open to all sections of Hindu, the term “Hindu” here includes Buddhist, Jain and Sikh.

In spite of the existence of this right the state has been provided with the authority to impose restrictions on the entry of certain religious groups to the temple. The restriction on the entry of temples to certain religious groups can be clearly inferred from the case of D. Senthilkumar vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (2024), this case is famously known as the ‘Palani Temple dispute’. The Madras High Court in the present case ruled that a non-Hindu cannot be allowed to enter into the premises of a temple without written undertaking. 

Such a written undertaking can be obtained from the government by those he non-Hindu who wanted to enter the temple. For obtaining the undertaking it must be shown by the non-Hindu that he is having a genuine faith in that particular God and in future he will follow the practice of Hindu religion. 

Moreover, certain restrictions can also be imposed on the exercise of the right to freedom of religion subject to public health. 

Public health

Safeguarding the public health and the life of an individual is one of the paramount responsibilities of the State. However, under certain situations the life saving measures which are taken by the State might affect these specific religious practices or beliefs.

For instance, in the present criminal law, suicide or attempt to commit suicide by an individual is considered to be a crime and it penalises the person who does so along with the other persons who assist to commission of such act. Thus, any action to attain the spiritual end or death by starvation or self-inflicted torture is an offence and the State does have the authority to take action in such a situation. Some of the social evil that were considered to be a religious practice in a primitive age such as sati was prohibited and was made a criminal offence.

Since, we have discussed the essential aspects and various limitations of the Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. Let’s look at some of the important judicial precedents which were delivered by the various High Courts and the Apex Court while deciding the issues relating to the religious matter. 

Important cases on Article 25 of the Indian Constitution

Gulam Abbas & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (1981)

In this case, the dispute arose between shia and sunni sect of Muslims regarding the performance of certain religious rites by shia Muslims on a certain plot of land in Varanasi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in order to avoid the clashes among the different sects with regards to the problem in question and to find a permanent solution, appointed a 7 member committee in which the chairman was Divisional Commissioner and 3-3 members were there from sunni and shia sect of Muslims. The recommendation made by the committee was that the graves should be shifted to a different location for the purpose of worship. However, the recommendation was challenged by the sunni sect on the ground that such action would be violative of the right to freedom of religion that is guaranteed under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Indian Constitution.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the religious freedom that is guaranteed under the Indian Constitution is not an unlimited or an absolute right but such right is subject to public order. The courts further observed that if the shifting of graves is in the interest of the general public then in such cases opinions of parties are immaterial even if the Muslim personal law is against the shifting of graves. 

It was found by the court that the suggestion which was made by the committee to shift the grave is important in order to maintain the social harmony and to ensure the public order in the society. The court found that, although the Shariat law is against the practice of shifting graves, the rights of every religious denomination are subject to ‘public order’. On the basis of the above stated reasoning, it was finally concluded by the court that shifting of graves in the present situation is essential to maintain the public peace and order of this society. 

Ramesh, s/o Chotalal Dalal vs. Union of India & Ors. (1988) 

In this case, there was a serial named “Tamas”. The said serial was based on a book that depicts the communal violence among two religion i.e. Hindu-Muslim and Sikh-Muslim. Along with that the instances of killing and looting were there in the serial. A writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, seeking the direction of the issuance of the writ of prohibition or any other appropriate direction for restraining the screening of the serial “Tamas”.Moreover petitioner urged that the screening of the said serial is violative of Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and hence the casting should be prohibited.

The court after evaluating the facts and the other issues associated with the case dismissed the petition and it was ruled by the court that the series is not in violation of Articles 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. The court observed that the author of the book merely wanted to bring the past history of the country, and the said serial creates the impression of peace and co-existence and the peoples are not likely to be carried away by the violence that is being shown in the serial. 

Bhuri Nath & Ors. vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (1997)

The main issue, in this case, was regarding the constitutionality of the Jammu and Kashmir Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988. The Jammu and Kashmir Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988 vested the right to perform pooja, right to administration, management of the shrine fund to the Board that was constituted under the said Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India addressing the issue of the case upheld the validity of the Act and it ruled that the right to perform pooja is a customary right and the state by way of its legislation can abolish such a right. 

Gulam Kadar Ahmadbhai Menon & Ors. vs Surat Municipal Corporation & Ors. (1998)

In the present case, Section 212 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 was challenged contending that the provision of the said Act is violative of the right to freedom of religion. Based on the said provision of the Act an order was passed to clean the line of a road by demolition of the mosque. 

Being aggrieved by such an order a petition was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The Gujarat High Court in the present case observed that if the place of worship is taken because of some important purpose such as the expansion of a road as in the present case. Then under such a situation it does not in any way affect the religious sentiment or any religion.

N. Adithayan vs. The Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. (2002) 

Petitioner in the present case claimed that every devotee as well as the authorities of the temple always followed the tradition. As a result, a non Brahmin who was appointed as a priest of a temple is violative of the tradition which was there since time immemorial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rejected the contention of the petitioner and it was ruled by the court that any individual who is qualified and trained to perform pooja in appropriate manner can carry out such rituals. 

Shayara Bano vs. Union of India & Ors. (2017)

In this case, Shyara Bano a Muslim women from Uttarakhand challenged the constitutional validity of talaq-e-biddat i.e. triple talaq (form of divorce in which a Muslim man divorces his wife by uttering the word “talaq” three times in a moment). It was submitted by her that the practice of triple talaq is not in consonance with the principles of a gender justice and therefore, it is violative of her fundamental rights. The major issue before the court was to decide whether the practice of triple talaq is essential religious practice or not. 

The court after evaluating the contentions in the present case was of the opinion that the practice of triple talaq has been banned in most of the Islamic country and therefore, it cannot be regarded as an essential religious practice. Therefore, the practice of triple talaq was held to be unconstitutional in this case. 

To know more about this case, click here. 

M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (2020)

The major dispute relating to the present case, was regarding the area of 1500 sq. metres that was situated in Ayodhya. It was contended by the respondents that the temple of Lord Shri Ram was present on that particular land but the Mughal emperor named ‘Babur’ destroyed that temple which was already built on that land. However, this contention was vehemently opposed by the appellant and it was submitted by them that mughal emperor ‘Babar’ did not destroy any such temple. 

The major issues for consideration before the Allahabad High Court was – 

• Whether the dividing the land in question into three parts was legally valid or not.
• Whether there was ever such a temple existed on that land as it was contested. If such a temple existed then whether the Hindu community is eligible for that or not? 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India consisting of five-judges bench ruled that the land which is under dispute must be given for the construction of the Ram Mandir (temple). Moreover, alternative land was provided to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of the mosque.

To know more about this case click here. 

After discussing every essential aspect of the Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. Let’s move further and discuss Article 26. 

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution 

What do you think is the right to freedom of religion is an individual right or right guaranteed to a certain group of people? The answer to this question lies under Article 26. From the above discussion of Article 25 it can be said that the right to freedom of religion is granted to an individual. However, apart from the right of religious freedom granted to individuals, Article 26 ensures the same for religious denominations as well. 

This Article states that subject to the public order, health and morality every religious denominations shall have following rights –

• Right to establish and maintain any institution for religious or charitable purposes. 
• Right to manage its affairs. 
• The right to acquire movable or immovable property
• Right to administer their property, while complying with the existing laws. 

In order to have a complete understanding of this provision let’s delve into the analysis of Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. 

Analysis of Article 26 of the Indian Constitution

The right to freedom of a religion to every religious denomination or section thereof, is being guaranteed by virtue of the Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. Article 26 guarantees every religious denomination or section thereof with the right to establish and maintain the religious institution for any religious or charitable purpose. 

However, the right granted to the religious denomination under this Article is not an absolute right and certain limitations or restrictions have been provided. Moreover this article also provides that religious denomination or section thereof does have a right to acquire as well as manage the movable and immovable property in accordance with law.

To complete the picture of the above stated provision, it’s important for us to discuss some important elements of this provision.  

Religious denomination

The right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution is an individual right, however the right guaranteed under Article 26 is the right belonging to a collective group like the religious denomination or any particular section of the society. The term ‘religious denomination’ is made up of two words i.e. ‘religious’ and ‘denomination’, the Constitution of India does not define any of the words.

However the Supreme Court of India in the case of Hindu Religious Endowments vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar or Shirur Mutt (1954), stated that the word ‘religion’ is a term which is “hardly susceptible of any rigid definition”. The court further clarifying on the said term goes on stating that the term religion is the basis of a system of beliefs or doctrine and it is regarded by those who profess that particular religion. Further, the court observed that the religion may not lay down any specific rule for its follower to accept and follow that, however, the religion may prescribe certain rituals, ceremonies and mode of worship, that are regarded as a vital part of religion. Furthermore, the court defined the term “denomination” by taking reference to the meaning that was provided in the Oxford Dictionary, which states that the denomination is a collection of individuals that are classed together under the same name having common faith and designated by a distinctive name.

Therefore, it has been established by now, with various judgments that in order to qualify as a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution, three conditions must be satisfied, which are as follows –

• There should be a collection of individuals and they must have common faith among themselves.
• There must be a common organisation.
• The common organisation must be designated by a distinctive name.

As a result the members belonging to the different religion, on successfully satisfying the above-mentioned condition, would be recognized as a denomination within the meaning of Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. 

Illustration – Christianity is one of the religious denominations of India. Therefore, they can establish any institution either for the charitable or religious purpose. For any affairs related to the religion they can manage themselves without any interference. Moreover, they have a right to acquire either movable or immovable property for catering any purpose relating to the management of their religious denomination. Apart from that, it is important for us to note that the process of administration must be done while complying with the existing laws of the country. 

Establishment and maintenance of religious institutions under Article 26(a)

The right to establishment and maintenance of religious institutions has been guaranteed under Article 26(a) of the Indian Constitution. The phrase ‘establish and maintain’ provided under this Article needs to be read conjunctively and, therefore, it can be inferred that, whenever any institution has been established by a religious denomination, then it can claim the right to maintain the same. Therefore, any institution can only claim to be maintained by a religious denomination if such institution had been established by that specific denomination. 

For e.g. – Islam is one of the religious denominations in India and if a mosque has been established by them in a particular locality. Then, under those instances only peoples belonging to Islamic denomination can have the right to maintain such institutions. 

All the religious denominations have been provided with the right to establish and maintain the religious institution. One question we might encounter is whether the religious denomination has an absolute right to manage any matter relating to religion or not. The provision for the same has been provided under Article 26(b) and to have a better understanding about this let’s move further and discuss it.

Right to manage religious matters under Article 26(b)

Article 26(b) guarantees that every religious denomination has a right to look after its own religious affairs. However, the right that is granted under this provision with respect to the management of religious affairs is not an unlimited or absolute right and it can be restricted if such right is exercised in any such way which violates the public order, health, or morality. Therefore, unless and until any activities go contrary to the public order, health or morality, the state cannot enter into such activities of religious denominations. 

Hence, it can be said that the religious denomination does have a complete liberty to choose and practice any religious ceremonies and rites which is considered to be essential religious practice based on their religious belief. The question regarding whether certain religious practices are essential or not is to be ascertained by the court of a law by properly evaluating the various principles and beliefs of that particular religion. 

Article 25(2)(b) of the Indian Constitution provides that the Hindu temple and other places of worship must remain open to all the Hindus. However, contrary to the above mentioned provision Article 26(b) provides religious denominations with the authority to decide who can enter into the temple and worship. Consequently, it can be said that while Hindu institutions should remain open to all Hindus, the religious denomination still has control as to who can participate and worship in accordance with their practice. As a result of a combined reading of both the articles an inconsistency appears to be there. The question that arises in such a situation is whether the right guaranteed under Article 26(b) is subject to Article 25(2)(b).

However, It is pertinent to note that under such a situation the rights that are guaranteed are merely limited to the matter of a religion and are subject to Article 25(2)(b). Therefore, the state has the authority to regulate any kind of secular activities, however those secular activities must be related to religion. For instance, there are various places of worship such as temples, mosques, churches, gurudwaras, etc. and such places cannot be used to secretly hide any criminal or such places cannot be used to carry out any kind of anti-national activities. Under those instances, the state can exercise its power and can prohibit those activities. 

The court in order to resolve such persisting issue, in the case of Sri Venakataramana Devaru vs. State of Mysore (1957), ruled that the right of the religious denomination to limit who can worship in the temple as described under Article 26(b) is of less importance when compared with the right of public to enter and worship in the temple as mentioned under Article 25(2)(b). The court further stated that if the religious denomination wants to restrict the access of certain services, rather than completely excluding the public from worshipping, then a way needs to be found in order to respect both the rights. The court harmonising both the Article stated that, if the public can still worship meaningfully even after restrictions imposed by the denomination, then under that situation religious denominations can be allowed to keep their specific rules while allowing the public to worship. 

Further, in the case of Sarwar Husain & Ors. vs. Additional Civil Judge & Ors. (1981), the question that was encountered by the court was, whether a Muslim belonging to a particular sect does have an absolute right to demand that an Imam of his set would lead him to prayers and restrain others from offering prayer as desired by him. The court after analysing the literature behind the present issue held that a public mosque is a place of worship for Muslim regardless of their sect, sub-sect, denomination or who has founded the mosque. The court considered that it is the fundamental right of every Muslims to offer prayers in the public mosque and the person cannot be denied of this right merely on the ground that the person does not belong to a particular sect, or denomination that has founded the mosque.

After discussing the above mentioned rights about the religious denomination. Now, let’s discuss the rights of religious denominations to acquire and administer the property. 

Acquire and administer the property under Article 26(c) and 26(d)

Clauses (c) and (d) of Article 26 of the Indian constitution provides the right to the religious denomination to acquire, own and administer the property in accordance with the law. 

The distinction can be drawn between “administration of property” which is mentioned under (d) of Article 26 and “management of religious affairs” as mentioned under (b) of Article 26. The former can be regulated by the laws that legislature can make, however the latter right is subject to the public order, morality and health that can’t be taken away by the rules of legislature.

It is pertinent to note that the right guaranteed under Article 26(d) of the Indian Constitution to administer property in accordance with the law is a fundamental right of religious denomination, which is subject to such restrictions and regulations as it might choose to impose. Therefore, any law which takes away the right of administration from the religious denomination and vest it to any other secular authority would amount to the infringement of right that is guaranteed under Article 26(d) of the Indian Constitution. 

It is important to note that the right that is being provided under clauses (c) and (d) of Article 26 of the Indian Constitution only protects such rights of the religious denomination that are already in existence with regards to the management of its property. The right of a religious denomination which is related to the management of property can only be regulated by the laws and the laws cannot entirely take away the right of a religious denomination to administer such property. Therefore it can be said that the religious denomination has been provided with the right to manage its property but it is subject to some reasonable restrictions that the law may choose to impose. 

However, if there is any situation in which the right of a religious denomination to administer the property has never been vested, or the right to administer such property has been lost by way of some superveining factors then no such right is created under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. 

In the case of Khajamian Wakf Estates Etc. vs. State of Madras & Anr. (1970), it was contended that the acquiring of property that belongs to a religious denomination by way of special enactment by legislature is violative of Article 26(c) and (d) of the Indian Constitution. The court rejected the said contention and it was observed that Article 26(c) and (d) does not take away the right of the state to acquire the property that belongs to the religious denomination. It was further ruled by the court that all the religious denominations do have a right to own and acquire the property according to law, but that doesn’t mean the property owned by them cannot be acquired by the state. Therefore, it can be said that if a property is acquired by the State then it cannot be said that Article 26 is violated under those circumstances. 

Based on the above discussion we can see that various rights have been granted to the religious denomination to secure or promote the right to freedom of religion. But all those rights are not an absolute right and hence this article further provides certain restrictions. Therefore, it is important for us to know about the various restrictions that are provided under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. 

Limitations of Article 26 of the Indian Constitution 

The religious denomination has been provided with the various rights under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. However, it is pertinent to note that, the right guaranteed to the religious denomination are not an absolute or unlimited right and certain restrictions has been provided for the same, which are as follows – 

• If any kind of a religious practice by the religious denomination possesses threat to public order, morality or health. Then, under such instances the authority has been provided to the State government to regulate such religious practices. 
• Although the religious denomination under this particular Article has been provided with the right to administer their property. But, it must be done in accordance with the legal framework of the country and it must not in any way contravene such legal framework.

Since, we have discussed the essential aspects and various limitations of Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. Let’s look at some of the important judicial precedents which were delivered by the various High Courts and the Apex Court while deciding the issues relating to Article 26. 

Important cases on Article 26 of the Indian Constitution

Bramchari Sidheswar Bhai & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal (1995)

Ramkrishna Mission in the present case, wanted to be recognized as a non-Hindu minority. Moreover, it was also claimed by them in this case that, while being recognised as a non-Hindu minority they also wanted to be treated as Hindu for certain purposes such as- inheritance or marriage. 

The Apex Court after analysing the facts persisted in this case ruled that, status of minority cannot be claimed by the Ramkrishna Mission as they are the part of Hindu religion and are not a separate religious group. Therefore, Ramkrishna Mission does not have any right to administer and establish any Educational Institute. 

S. Azeez Basha & Anr. vs. Union of India (1967)

The present case arose because of certain amendments that were brought into the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. Those alterations in the amendments was challenged by the petitioner contending that such amendments are violative of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. Since the petitioner in this case belongs to a Muslim minority committee. It was submitted by them before the court that,  because of the amendment in the said Act, their right to freedom of religion has been violated. They specifically mentioned some of the articles such as under Article 25, 26, and 29 are violated because of these amendments That were brought in the Act. 

The Apex Court ruled that before the year 1920 there was nothing that prevented the Muslim community from establishing the university. The Aligarh Muslim University was established by way of legislation i.e. the Aligarh Muslim University, 1920 and therefore Muslim community cannot claim that the university was established by them as it was brought into existence by the central legislation. 

Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb vs. The State of Bombay (1962) 

In the present case, petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949. The petitioner was the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community and along with that he was the trustee of its property. The said legislation was challenged on the ground that it invalidates the ex-communication among the members of the community and thereby his rights under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Indian Constitution has been violated. 

The Supreme Court of India after examining the provisions of the Act that was in question, ruled that the expression i.e. “law providing for social welfare and reform” that is used under Article 25(2)(1) does not intend to enable the legislature to reform the religion in any way out of existence or identity. 

It was interestingly ruled by the court that the Act in question is violative of the religious freedom that are guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. 

State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Sajjanlal Panjawat & Ors. (1973)

In the present case, it was ruled by the court that authority has been granted to the State to regulate as well as administer the property that belongs to any trust. But, the state cannot by law take away the right to administer such property and vest such property to the authority that does not even comprise the denomination. However, if it is being done then it would be clear violation of Article 26 (d) off the Indian Constitution

Having explored the entire concept regarding the Article 26 of the Indian Constitution in a greater detail. Let’s move on to the next constitutional provision that endeavours for securing the right to freedom of religion. 

Freedom from the payment of taxes for the promotion of any specific religion 

We as a prudent citizens of a country are obliged to pay taxes under certain instances. But have you ever thought of a situation wherein you can be forced to pay tax for the promotion of any specific religion? Let’s consider an instance in which the government has imposed taxes on the general public for promoting Hindu religion. Under those situations you might refuse to pay taxes because Article 27 of the Indian Constitution protects you from the payment of such taxes. 

Therefore, if it can be said that if certain taxes are imposed with the sole purpose to promote or maintain any specific religion then under those instances no person can be compared to pay search taxes. 

With the literal understanding of this provision it can be observed by all of us that this particular provision intends to prohibit any kind of compulsion that can be imposed on a person to pay taxes. If that taxes will eventually be used for promotion or maintenance of any specific religion or religious denomination. 

Challenges while implementing Article 27 of the Indian Constitution

The main objective of Article 27 is to uphold social justice and maintain neutrality among the different religions. However, in the contemporary period it has been observed that this Article has been subject to the various controversies and challenges. Among all the challenges one of the major issues is regarding the clarity of the fact as to what exactly does the promotion of religion means. 

It has been argued on many occasion that any kind of expenditure on religious activities, even if it is for the purpose of maintenance violates Article 27 of the Indian Constitution, and the governments should completely be refrained from providing any kind of financial assistance to the religious institution as it may indirectly promote that particular religion to whom the assistance is provided. 

On the contrary, the supporters of religious freedom contend that any religious place holds cultural and historic significance and it is very important to maintain those places. Apart from that the proponents of religious freedom also emphasises that as long as the funds are distributed among all the religions without any discrimination then under those instances Article 27 of the Indian Constitution is not considered to be violated. 

The subsisting challenges on many occasions have been taken into consideration by the Indian judiciary and it is indisputable fact that Indian Judiciary is playing a crucial role to address the subsisting challenges relating to the Article 27 of the Indian Constitution. 

For instance, in the case of, Bira Kishore vs. State of Orissa (1975), a certain amount of money was granted by the government for the purpose of renovation of the water tank of Markanda, Narendra and Sweta-ganga at Puri. It was ruled by the court that granting money for the purpose of a renovation of a water tank does not violate Article 27 of the Indian Constitution.

It was observed by the court that the tanks in the present case were used by the general public consisting of the different communities and not by the single class of people. Therefore, it is essential to maintain and repair those tanks and it cannot be said that the state is promoting or maintaining Hindu religion. 

Different instances when Article 27 is considered to be violated

There are certain instances and on the successful fulfilment of those instances, the Article 27 of the Indian Constitution is considered to be violated, which are as follows –

• Existence of tax.
• That tax should directly or indirectly go towards the maintenance or promotion of any specific religion or religious denomination. 
•  Compelling an individual to pay such tax. 
• The main intention behind imposing such tax by the state is to directly promote any specific religion or religious denominations.

Important cases on Article 27 of the Indian Constitution

Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954)

In this case, the legislature of Madras enacted the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 and Section 76 of the said Act, levied contribution. The petitioner contended that the said contributions are taxes and not fee and therefore, the contribution violates Article 27 of the Indian Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India ruled that the contribution levied under Section 76 of the Act is a tax, however, the purpose of such tax is the proper administration of religious institutions and the endowments. Therefore, the court considering this fact held that Article 27 is not violated because of the tax levied under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951. 

T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors (2002)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case, ruled that the manner in which the Article 27 has been framed does not In any way prohibits the State from enacting a law to enact the expense particularly for the promotion or the maintenance of any specific religion.

However, the court clarified that based on this provision no person shall be compelled to pay any tax if that tax is going to be utilised either for the promotion or maintenance of any specific religion or religious denomination. 

To know more about this case, click here. 

Mahant Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das & Anr. vs. The State of Orissa & Anr. (1954)

In this case, there was a legislation named Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951 and Section 49 of the said legislatio was challenged. According to Section 49 of the Act every temple or maths that is having income more than Rs. 250 was required to pay an annual contribution at a certain percentage of the annual income.

In light of Section 49 of the said Act it was asserted before the court that the said provision is violative of Article 27 of the Indian Constitution. The court ruled that, for the payment of tax two essentials must met i.e. the imposition of tax was made for a public purpose to meet the general expense without any special benefit and the payment of that tax is collected as a general revenue of the State that is used for the welfare of a general public. 

However, the payment levied is to be considered as a fee when such payment is regarding the fulfilment of certain services that an individual has accepted, either willingly or unwillingly and there should be certain elements of quid pro quo. Therefore it was concluded by the court that contribution in the present case must not be considered as a text and hence Article 27 is not violated under such a situation. 

Since, we’ve explored the essential concepts regarding the Article 27 of the Indian Constitution. Let’s move further and discuss other constitutional provisions that promote the right to freedom of religion.

Article 28 of the Indian Constitution

The provision regarding impartation of religious instructions inside the educational institution has been provided under Article 28 of the Indian Constitution. Whether certain religious instruction can be imparted in the educational institute or not depends upon the nature of such educational institute and with which funds such educational institute is being maintained. 

Firstly let’s discuss the restriction that is imposed under Article 28(1) regarding the impartation of religious instruction. Suppose there is an educational institute near the area where you live and that educational institute is completely maintained out of state funds. Therefore, whenever you visit that particular educational institute you will notice that no religious instruction is being imported in those institutes. The reason for the same is Article 28(1), this provision ensures that no religious instruction can be allowed to be imparted in those educational institutes that are maintained completely out of state funds. 

But here’s the catch, as we all know that there are two sides of every coin the same goes with Article 28. The general rule has been provided under Article 28(1), however, an exception to that general rule is provided under Article 28(2). The exception to the general rule is that if any educational institute even though has been established completely out of the state funds, religious instruction can be imported provided it must have been established under an endowment or trust. 

Are you still wondering if Article 28 provides something else? Indeed yes, and it’s time for us to discuss Article 28(3). Suppose there is a situation in which you are not in a mood to attend any religious workshop that is being conducted inside any educational institute maintained out of State fund, can you be compelled to attend that workshop? If anybody compels you to attend that workshop make sure you take stand of your constitutional right guaranteed under Article 28(3). Article 28(3) provides that no person can be compelled to attend any workshop that is conducted in such an educational institute receiving an aid out of State fund. 

However, a person may attend those workshops without any force or any other factors which might affect his decision, and under those conditions it cannot be said that there is the abridgment of Article 28(3). In case a person is a minor, then consent can be given by the guardian on behalf of that person.  

Prohibitions and limitations under Article 28 

Imparting any kind of religious instruction in the educational institution which is maintained wholly by the state fund is prohibited under Article 28 of the Indian Constitution. 

However, there is a limitation to the prohibition that is being provided under Article 28. Limitation provides that prohibition must not be applicable on such educational institutions that are administered by the state but has been established endowment or trust, that requires that such religious instructions should be imparted. Additionally, if any educational institute is funded by the state then in such an institute it is not necessary for a person to take part or attend any workshop that is conducted within the premises of that educational Institute.

Different types of educational institutions under Article 28 

Article 28 of the Indian Constitution mentions about 4 types of educational institutes, which are as follows – 

• Educational institutes that are maintained wholly by the state fund and in those educational institutes religious interaction is completely prohibited. 
• There are certain educational institutes that are recognised by the State. In those educational institutes, religious instructions can be imparted with the consent of an individual.
• Those educational institutes that receive aid out of the State fund. In such educational institutes religious instructions may be imparted, but it must be done only with the consent of an individual.
• Lastly, those educational institutes that are established under an endowment or trust but are administered by the State. In suh educational institutes there are no restrictions on religious instructions.

Important cases on Article 28 of the Indian Constitution 

D.A.V. College Bathinda, Etc. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1971) 

In this case, the Guru Nanak University (Amritsar) Act, 1969 was enacted and Section 4 of the Act, made it mandatory for the State to make provisions to study about the teaching and the life of Guru Nanak. 

The main issue in the present case was that, since Guru Nanak University was completely maintained out of the state fund. Therefore, whether such mandatory provision for the study about teaching of Guru Nanak is violative of the Article 28 of the Indian Constitution or not? 

The court in the present keys draws a very good reasoning and it was observed by the court that the provision in question merely aims to provide the valuable lesson regarding the life of Guru Nanak. The court thus ruled that Article 28 cannot be considered to be violated under these instances. 

Aruna Roy & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 

In this case, a PIL was filed and it was submitted before the court that the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) which was published by the NCERT is contrary to the constitutional provisions. Petitioner submitted before the court that imparting education with regards to a particular religion would violate the Article 28 of the Indian Constitution and would also go contrary to the secularism which is one of the basic structures of the Indian Constitution. 

The main issue in the present case was whether the NCFSE and syllabus which was framed under the said framework was violative of the Article 28 of the Indian Constitution and principles of secularism?

The court by virtue of its judgement in the present case provided that there is no prohibition on the study of principles related to religion for having a value based life. It was further added by the court that Article 28 does not restrict any person to study about the philosophy of any religion for having knowledge with respect to that religion and hence Article 28 is not violated in the present instance. 

Since we have discussed every provision that protects the right to freedom of religion of an individual and the religious group and therefore, we can say that we’ve the right to freedom of religion as a fundamental right. However, in spite of the availability of these provisions one may encounter a situation in which there can be the abridgment of their fundamental right to freedom of religion.

But under those situations one can recourse to the various remedies that are available. Therefore, it’s time for us to move further and discuss the remedies that are available in situations when there is curtailment of the right to freedom of religion. 

Remedies available against the abridgment of the right to freedom of religion

Under the Indian Constitution the right to freedom of religion is being regarded as the fundamental right. As a result if there is any instance in which the fundamental right to freedom of a religion is being violated then under such a situation an individual can directly file a writ petition either to the the Supreme Court of India or before any other High Courts. 

The different types of writs are briefed below. To know more about writs, click here.

• Habeas corpus – The meaning of the term habeas corpus is “to have the body”. For instance, while performing any kind of religious activities if a person gets detained by the public authority and prima facie it appears that his detention is unlawful then under such circumstances one can recourse to the writ of habeas corpus. There are various instances under which the writ of habeas corpus can be issues such as: non-presentation of detained person before the magistrate within 24 hours under normal circumstances, if the arrest was made under the law which is unconstitutional, person got arrested without any violation of law, etc.
• Mandamus – If a person is having a legal right to perform certain religious or any other activities, however if that activity is being inhibited due to certain reason, then under those circumstances one can approach the court for the issuance of this writ. The court can issue the writ of mandamus in the form of direction, that is given to the public authorities to perform certain tasks. 

The term “public authorities” here includes government, tribunals, public officials, inferior courts or public corporations. 

• Certiorari – Whenever it is observed by the Higher Court that the Lower Court in its final decision has made a certain error or the decision is beyond the court’s authority. Then under those situations the writ of certiorari can be issued. The court under the situation can transfer the case before itself and can take the charge of such a case or can even quash the verdict delivered by the inferior court. Before the year 1991 the writ of certiorari could have been issued against the judicial body or against the quasi-judicial body. However, after the year 1991 the writ of certiorari can also be issued against the administrative authorities
• Quo warranto – In order to understand this writ in a better way let’s discuss an instance.  We must have noticed the fact that certain permanent positions are provided by the state in order to manage and regulate specific religious institutions. But what if that position is held by a person who does not have a proper authority to hold that. In that situation the writ of ‘quo warranto’ can be issued. 

The word ‘quo warranto’ means “by what authority”. The court by using this writ can stop the excessive or arbitrary use of authority. The main ground for issuing this writ is that the person holding the office is not qualified by law to hold that. 

• Prohibition – If while exercising the power the lower court or tribunal exceeds their lawful jurisdiction, then under that condition the writ of prohibition may be issued to prevent further proceedings by that court.

The principles of natural justice refer to fairness and due process and if it is alleged that the lower court or the tribunal while exercising its power has acted in contravention to the principles of natural justice then under those instances the writ of prohibition may be issued. If the law used by the authorities is invalid or if the power is exercised in the way in which there’s infringement of basic legal rights, then under those conditions as well the writ of prohibition can be issued. 

Other recourse 

Apart from seeking remedies by way of filing writ petitions or any other lawsuit in the court of law, there are some other remedies to which one can recourse which are as follows – .

• Filing of complaints before the human rights commissions that are actively engaged to look before the matter related to religious freedom.
• Collaborating with Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) or any other proper groups to apply public pressure on the authorities to address violations of religious freedom.
• Any aggrieved person can directly reach out either to a religious group or any community that can as is them with the proper remedies. 

However, if you ever encounter any situation where you believe that there is curtailment of the right to freedom of a religion. Then under those situations it is highly recommended to consult a legal practitioner in order to get the remedy at the earliest and through effective measures. 

Having discussed the various remedies, let’s look at the role of secularism in achieving the right to freedom of religion in our country. 

Role of secularism in achieving religious freedom in India

Secularism in foreign countries vs. secularism in India 

It is usually seen in India that religion and State are not separated and on many occasions the State contributes to the various activities of different religions. On the contrary, in many foreign countries such as the United States, the term secularism is contemplated in a bit stricter sense, and for them secularism means that there is no interference of the State in the matters of religion. In India the right to freedom of religion is considered to be a fundamental right and this right has been granted to every person who is residing in India without taking into consideration which class or community that person belongs to. 

In the case of Everson vs. Board of Education of Ewing Township (1947), the American Supreme Court establishes that the state should have minimal or no interference in the matter of religion as evident from the observations made by the court in the present case. It was observed by the court that the power to establish a church can never be given to either State all to a Federal government. It was also observed by the court that for supporting any religion no taxes can be charged from the normal people and it is immaterial whether such tax is nominal or exorbitant. Furthermore, it was also ruled that neither the state nor the Federal government can participate in any kind of religious matter. 

After getting acquainted with the above-mentioned facts it can be observed by us that secularism in foreign countries is exercised in a bit stricter sense. Whereas, in India it is exercised in a flexible manner by considering the situation and circumstances of the case. 

Secularism in India

Secularism in India basically means that equal status and equal treatment must be given to all the religions without any impartiality. The idea of secularism can be traced back in the year 1948 when KT Shah put forward the opinion to include the word ’secular’ in the Indian Constitution. The framers of the constitution agreed on the secular nature of the Indian Constitution, but unfortunately the word “secular” was not included in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution and finally it was included in the year 1976 by way of the 42nd Amendment Act. 

India being a secular State does not have any particular religion of the State and thereby, every religion in India enjoys the same protection without any kind of discrimination. For a democracy to exist in a true sense the existence of secularism is of paramount importance, and in the absence of secularism there are high chances that the followers of different communities would be fighting among themselves. 

Therefore, India being a secular country leaves the matter relating to religious affairs at the discretion of an individual. Moreover, the basic idea underlying the concept of secularism is that along with religious freedom the religious protection should also be provided to every distinct religion without any discrimination. Therefore, every place of worship is treated equally in India. 

In the case of Santosh Kumar & Ors. vs. Secy. Ministry of Human Resource Development (1995), certain changes were brought in the curriculum of CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) and Sanskrit language was included as a subject. It was contended in the present case that introduction of a new language i.e. Sanskrit in the present case is violative of the principles of secularism. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, that Sanskrit language is a mother of all Aryan language and therefore, the introduction of a Sanskrit language as a distinct subject is not in violation of the principles of secularism. 

After covering every provision and important concept with regards to the right to freedom of religion. It’s time for us to move further and discuss some of the landmark cases that were delivered by the High Courts and The Apex Code while deciding the pertinent issues regarding religious freedom. 

Landmark judgments 

Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. (2018)

Facts

The present case, the temple in question was known as ‘Sabarimala Temple’. This temple was located in the state of Kerala. As per the tradition of a temple the women of menstruating age were not allowed to enter in the premises of the temple. The prohibition of women from entering into the temple was justified on the basis of the ancient custom which was legitimised by way of rule 3(b) framed under the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965. 

The prohibition imposed on the women of a certain age from entering into the temple was challenged before the Apex Court in the year 2006. The petition was filed with the primary contention that the Sabarimala temple’s custom is violative of Articles 14 and Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. It was contended that such a practice is in derogation to the dignity of women and along with that female worshipers are deprived of one of the vital rights i.e. right to freedom of religion. 

Issues

Major issues that were before the court for consideration are as follows –

• Whether the prohibition of women from entering into Sabarimala temple is violative of right guaranteed under Article 14, 15, 17 and 25 of the Indian Constitution?
• Whether the freedom of religion as enshrined under Article 25, can impose restrictions based on biological factors such as menstruation?
• Whether Sabarimala Temple is a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution?

Judgment

The Honorable Supreme Court of India by majority of 4:1 ruled that the prohibition imposed on the entry of a woman of menstruating age from entering into the temple is unconstitutional. The court also struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 considering it to be violative of the Part III of the Indian Constitution. Apart from that, the court also passed certain orders in order to ensure the safety of women devotees for entering into the temple without inconvenience. 

The court found that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate denomination and in absence of any scriptural or textual evidence justifying the exclusion of women cannot be considered to be an essential religious practice. 

To know more about this case, click here. 

Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta vs. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta & Anr. (1983)

Facts

In the present case, an order was issued by the responded under Section 144 of the CrPC (now Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) that no members of the assembly or procession being 5 or more in number should carry any weapon that has potential of creating an offence and disturb public peace. 

Aggrieved by such an order a writ petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution by the General Secretary of Ananda Marga. It was contended by them that the order issued is violative of their right to freedom of religion.  It was observed by the Calcutta High Court that any religious practices should not violate the public order of the society. 

The court further clarified that there is no objection in holding any procession or demonstration. However, waiving fire or skulls or daggers in the public cannot be placed under the similar category, under those instances many other things are involved such as sense of security, interest of other members of society etc. The court further stated that the authorities need to ensure the feelings of the other members and eventually its the duty of the authorities to secure the law and order in the society. As a result the court concluded that in the present case the different activities carried out by the petitioner such as carrying fire, skulls and daggers in the public place cannot claim protection of the right to freedom of religion. Therefore, the said petition was dismissed by the court. 

Aggrieved by the decision which was delivered by the Calcutta High Court, a writ petition was preferred before the Apex Court. It was contended by the petitioner before the court that the practice of tandava dance is an essential religious practice of Ananda Marga and they are entitled to perform such religious practice in private as well as in public place. 

Moreover, it was contended by the petitioner that interference of respondents in such religious practice is opposed to the fundamental rights that is guaranteed under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Indian Constitution and the repetitive order issued by the respondent under Section 144 of CrPC (presently – Section 163 of BNSS) was never contemplated by the Code and therefore, issuance of such order is abuse of law.

Issues

• Whether tandava dance could be regarded as an essential religious practice of Ananda Marga?
• Whether the repetitive order issued under Section 144 of CrPC (presently – Section 163 of BNSS) was valid?
• Whether Ananda Marga is a religious denomination?

Judgment

It was observed by the court that in order to be recognized as a religious denomination, three conditions must be satisfied i.e. there must be the collection of individuals having common faith, there should be a common organisation, and the organisation must be designated by a common name. The court after evaluating the evomission point concluded that Anand Marga is a religious denomination within the Hindu religion. 

However, the court found that when Anand Marga was first established, tandava dance was not an essential religious practice. Tandava dance was made a part of religion in the year 1996 and hence it cannot be regarded as an essential religious practice. Therefore, the Apex Court ruled that the performance of tandava dance in public cannot be regarded as an essential religious practice. 

The court on the issue of repetitive order imposed by the respondent under Section 144 of CrPC (presently – Section 163 of BNSS) was of the opinion that the order imposed under Section 144 of CrPC (presently – Section 163 of BNSS) was never intended by the Parliament to be of the permanent or semi-permanent in character. 

The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College vs. State Of Gujarat & Anr (1974)

Facts

The facts of the present case, mainly revolves around the legislation and working of an educational institute. The petitioner belongs to a religious denomination and he used to run a college. That college was affiliated to the Gujarat University Act, 1949, and it was established with the main purpose to provide higher education to those students belonging to Christian and other religions. 

The petitioner approached the court of law with the submission that the Gujarat University Act, 1949 is encroaching upon the working of the minority educational institute. It was submitted before the court that the provisions of the Gujarat University Act, 1949 is inconsistent with the constitutional mandates and hence the said legislation must be declared void and unconstitutional. 

The petitioner pointed out some of the facts with respect to the Gujarat University Act, 1949 which were arbitrary. The petitioner contended that no laws can be made by the State which takes away or abridges the fundamental right of the citizen and in the present case there were various instances in which clear violation of fundamental rights can be observed. Therefore, he urged before the court to declare the Gujarat University Act, 1949 as unconstitutional.  

Issues

The major issues before the court were – 

• Do minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutes?
• Whether such educational institutes can be established with the main purpose to provide secular and general education? 

Judgement

The court in the present case observed that the right of a minority to establish and administer an educational institute must not be read or contemplated in a restrictive manner. However, it was further clarified by the court that like any other fundamental right certain restrictions must be imposed on the establishment and administration of such educational institutes. Therefore, from the above observation of the court it can be inferred that the right to establish and maintain the religious institution by any minority is not an absolute right and certain restrictions can be imposed on that right.

Furthermore, it was also observed by the court that the main objective behind the fundamental provision that secures the right to freedom of a religion of an individual is to preserve the rights of religious and linguistic minorities. Therefore, the court in the present case ruled that any law in question that violates the rights of minorities can be held to be void.

Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. (2018)

Facts

The facts of this case revolve around a female medical student named Hadiya Jahan. It is important for us to note that the girl was originally of a Hindu religion. Father of Hadiya named K.M. Asokan received information that she has changed her religion and has got married to a Muslim man named Shafin Jahan. As a result, father fell ill, and hearing this news Hadiya Jahan left to meet his father, but she never reached father’s home.

K.M. Asokan i.e. father of Hadiya Jahan filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Kerala High Court, and in the said petition the marriage was challenged. It was submitted by her father before the court that the marriage of her daughter was performed by forcing and misleading her and therefore, she got converted into Muslim religion. However, that writ petition was rejected by the court as the daughter affirmed to the court that her marriage was performed with her full consent and there was no element of force or coercion.

After the writ petition got rejected by the court another petition was filed by the father with the contention that her daughter was subjected to forced conversion. It was also submitted before the court that there are high chances that her daughter will be transported to another country in future. Based on the contentions given by the father the court passed an interim order to keep surveillance on the daughter. The interim order was passed with the purpose to ensure that the daughter should not leave the country. However, Hadiya Jahan appeared to the court and it was asserted by her that she does not have any passport and there is no likelihood to leave this country. The daughter also declared before the court that she is married to a man named Shafin Jahan. 

Considering the above-mentioned point the court invoked parens patriae jurisdiction and the marriage was declared void. The court declared marriage as void by noting the fact that the daughter in the present case is vulnerable and there is high probability that she is capable of being exploited. 

Aggrieved by the said order an appeal was filed by the Safin Jahan before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.  

Issues

The main issues before the court were – 

• Whether the High Court was correct in allowing the writ of habeas corpus?
• Whether annulling the marriage between in the present case was right?

Judgement

The Apex Court set aside the judgement that was delivered by the High Court. As a result the marriage between Hadiya Jahan and Safin Jahan was restored. However, the Apex Court directed that the investigation that is ongoing in the present case should continue. 

Moreover, the daughter at that time was under the custody of her parents, the court ordered that she should be removed from such custody as it was against her will. Furthermore the court ordered to send her back to the place where she was pursuing her internship, after she expressed her desire to continue that. 

Church of God (Full Gospel) in India vs. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare & Ors. (2000)

Facts

In this case, the question regarding the right to freedom of a religion by the church and securing the public interest came into picture. Before directly delving into the facts let’s have a brief background of the present case. There was a church that was located in Chennai and under the premises of that church various musical instruments were present. Those musical instruments were used at the time of prayers. 

The respondents filed a complaint before the state pollution control board with the submission that the use of various musical instruments during the prayers are causing inconvenience to the peoples residing in that locality due to the sound produced during prayers. The complaints were also made to the officer-in-charge of police and the superintendent of police and in light of the complaint made the level of sound were checked by the board’s acting chief environmental officer. The result of the test revealed that the noise pollution on the Madhavaram High Road was majorly because of the traffic.

As a result the KKR Majestic Colony Welfare Association petitioned the High Court for seeking appropriate order directing the officer-in-charge of police and the superintendent of police to take appropriate action. The learned counsel on behalf of the church contended that the petition has been filed with the intention to prevent the religious minority institution from pursuing its religious activity and the court must not issue any order otherwise it might act as an impediment towards the church’s exercise of religious belief. 

It was observed by the court that there’s nothing of malice or malicious wish to cause any hindrance to the free practice of religious faith of church and if the sound created by the church exceeds the prescribed limit then in that case it has to be abated. 

Aggrieved by such an order the church filed an appeal before the Apex Court for the final decision.

Issues

• Is it viable for a particular community to claim addition of noise pollution on the grounds of religion? 
• Whether the use of a loudspeaker and amplifiers during prayers and thereby causing breach of peace and harmony is legal or not?
• Whether in the present case Article 25 and Article 26 has been violated or not? 

Judgment

The court in the present case was of the opinion that the rights of every individual must be respected and must remain protected. Therefore, exercise of one’s right must not go contrary or affect the rights of another or rights of society at large. The arguments that were put forward by the appellant in the present case were dismissed and it was noted by the court that authorities were only instructed to comply with certain guidelines that were already present by way of certain legislations. 

The court also noted that in the present era industrialisation and urbanisation has contributed to the pollution to a greater extent. In such circumstances it cannot be permitted for others to continuously increase the level of pollution by different activities such as beating drums, using amplifiers, speakers and other similar musical instruments.

The court while adjudicating the appeal regarding the rights that were claimed under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Indian Constitution ruled that such a right is subject to public order, morality and health. As a result, the court finally ruled that if the prayer is being performed in such a way that adversely affects the right of another which includes the instances of being disturbed then such activities cannot be allowed. 

Shri A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (1996)

Facts

In the present case, the petitioner is one of the chief priests (archaka) in an ancient and renowned Hindu Temple at Thirumala Tirupathi, which is famous in the entire South-Asia as well as abroad as venkateswaraswamy temple. According to the petitioner the office of archaka has been passed down through generations according to ‘Vaikhanasa Agama Shastra’ rule, involving four families namely – Paidapally, Gollapalli, Pethainti, and Thirupathanna Garu. The petitioner belongs to the Paidapally family and they perform religious service at the lord venkateswaraswamy temple on the Saptagiri hills in Thirumalai in accordance with the vaishnava traditions.

The petitioner in the present case challenged the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 , as the Act brought changes in the process for the appointment of temple priest (archakas) and along with that the Act takes away the rights to share offering made at the temple. The petitioner submitted before the court that appointment of priest in a temple is a religious practice and search practice was established by their ancestors from time immemorial. Therefore, the practice regarding appointment of temple priests is their inheritance right and the Act in question violates that right. 

Issues

Whether the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, violates Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution?

Judgment

It was observed by the Court that the rights guaranteed under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Indian Constitution is not an absolute right and certain restrictions are provided to it. As a result, the Act in question does not in any way violate the constitutional provisions in question. 

Therefore, the court by way of its judgement ruled that the abolition of inheritance rights of priests does not violate Article 25 and Article 26 of the Indian Constitution. 

Atheist Society of India, Nalgonda vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh (1992)

Facts

The petitioner in this case, filed a writ of mandamus before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner prayed to the court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent i.e. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner wanted to have an order by way of a writ, instructing all the heads of departments to prohibit the religious performance of worship during the state functions. The petitioner prayed that the religious practice must be prohibited during any state function such as laying of foundation stone for small and large projects, inauguration of any state buildings or institutions and exhibiting any religious symbol in the state office or its subordinates.

The main grievances on part of petitioner were that the respondent i.e. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh is not following the secular provision mandated under the Indian Constitution. It was further submitted by the petitioner that the state by permitting the activities such as performance of pujas, breaking of coconut, and chanting of mantras of different religion during the time of laying foundations and inauguration is promoting religious sentiments of a particular religion, and hence such activities must be prohibited. The petitioner further goes on pointing towards the fact that various public bodies such as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, are freely exhibiting religious symbols in the bus station as well as in the buses. 

The petitioner asserted that, since all the practices are supported by the government, as a result the religious sentiments of peoples are raised thereby leading to communal tension among different religions. Before approaching the court of law the petitioner made representation to the respondent dated 2-12-1991 to discontinue the religious performance during the state function, however there was no response made on the part of respondent. As a result the said petitioner fled before the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court for the decision regarding the existing issues.

Issues

The main issue before the court was, whether the performance of religious activities at the state owned organisation is violative of Article 25 and secular principles of the Indian Constitution?

Judgment

The court was of the opinion that, the bare perusal of the Preamble and Article 25 to 30 gives us the idea that the object of the constitution is not to prevent religious practice but to provide liberty, freedom, equality and fraternity to the various peoples belonging to different religions. 

The court further stated that the objective of constitution is not to turn the country into an irreligious place and if the prayer of petitioner would be granted then it would infringe the rights of crores of Indians that is guaranteed to them under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, the court rejected the petition considering that there is no merit in that writ petition. 

Conclusion

From the above discussion it can be said that India is a secular country and does not support any specific religion. As a result, the Indian Constitution provides every individual with the right to profess, practice and promote the religion of their choice. However, the religious freedom that is being guaranteed under the Indian Constitution is not unlimited or absolute and certain reasonable restrictions are provided to it. Therefore, the State can take certain actions, if in the name of a religion public order is disturbed or intolerance among the people is being caused because of such an activity. 

From the above discussion of the various provisions relating to the ‘right to freedom of religion’ it can be well inferred that these provisions are playing a pivotal role for securing the principle of secularism and equality. These rights that are guaranteed to every individual by virtue of Article 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution makes sure that the beliefs of every individual are respected while ensuring that such religious beliefs do not lead to any kind of discrimination or religious conflict.

But, it’s a lamenting fact that in spite of the existence of various rights relating to the right to freedom of a religion many problems still persist. Those problems are non-exhaustive but some of the inconveniences that can be observed by us are religious intolerance, conflicts in religious practice, disagreement while implementing these rights etc. In order to overcome such challenges the awareness and education about these rights must be done to achieve the stricter enforcement of the available provisions. The various efforts and initiative by prudent citizens regarding addressing the subsisting challenges can lead to the harmonious and inclusive society where every individual will enjoy the right to freedom of religion without any inhibitions.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

How does the principle of “reasonable restriction” apply to Article 25 of the Indian Constitution?

In the above analysis of Article 25 we have seen that many rights have been guaranteed to the individual that ensures the right to freedom of religion. But, one fact can also be construed from that discussion i.e. religious freedom guaranteed under Article 25 is not absolute and is subject to public order, morality and health. 

On many occasions it has been reiterated by the various courts that while an individual does have the right to freedom of religion, this freedom can be restricted in order to ensure that it must not contravene the public order, morality or health. 

Mention the difference between “profess, practice, and propagate” religion enshrined under Article 25 and “freedom to manage religious affairs” as enshrined under Article 26?

Article 25 allows an individual to practise their religion including the right to teach or spread knowledge about their faith i.e. propagate. However, it can be noted by all of us that the religious freedom guaranteed under Article 26 is predominantly conferred to the religious denomination. 

Therefore the right to profess, practice and propagate religion under Article 25 is an individual right.  On the other hand the freedom to manage religious affairs under Article 26 does have a slightly broader ambit as it covers and confers right to the religious groups. 

References

• https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Freedom-of-Religion-under-Indian-Constitution
• https://ijcltesting.nalsar.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Maheshwari-Nautiyal_IJCL_volume-10_2021-pdf.pdf
• https://www.bbau.ac.in/dept/HR/TM/Freedom%20of%20religion%20under%20Indian%20Constitution.pdf 
• https://www.ijarnd.com/manuscripts/v3i7/V3I7-1186.pdf 
• “Indian Constitutional Law” authored by M.P. Jain
• “Constitutional Law of India” authored by Dr.J.N.Pandey
• “Constitution of India” authored by V.N.Shukla