Question Description
Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths.(Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).Q.Riots have just taken place in the small town of Mirzapur. Religious tempers were simmering. In this atmosphere, a small group of violent people from each religion decided to start announcing that the only path to salvation was the annihilation of the people of the other sect. The government decided to outlaw any public religious announcements in Mirzapur. Both the groups challenged this action. Their challenge will –a)Succeed as their announcements are profession and propagation of their religion, which is protected by Article 25.b)Fail as their right to make religious announcements can be restricted to preserve public order.c)Succeed as annihilation of people is essential to their religion and an announcement of the same is thus permitted.d)Failas though believing annihilation of people is essential to their religion, announcing it is not.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths.(Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).Q.Riots have just taken place in the small town of Mirzapur. Religious tempers were simmering. In this atmosphere, a small group of violent people from each religion decided to start announcing that the only path to salvation was the annihilation of the people of the other sect. The government decided to outlaw any public religious announcements in Mirzapur. Both the groups challenged this action. Their challenge will –a)Succeed as their announcements are profession and propagation of their religion, which is protected by Article 25.b)Fail as their right to make religious announcements can be restricted to preserve public order.c)Succeed as annihilation of people is essential to their religion and an announcement of the same is thus permitted.d)Failas though believing annihilation of people is essential to their religion, announcing it is not.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths.(Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).Q.Riots have just taken place in the small town of Mirzapur. Religious tempers were simmering. In this atmosphere, a small group of violent people from each religion decided to start announcing that the only path to salvation was the annihilation of the people of the other sect. The government decided to outlaw any public religious announcements in Mirzapur. Both the groups challenged this action. Their challenge will –a)Succeed as their announcements are profession and propagation of their religion, which is protected by Article 25.b)Fail as their right to make religious announcements can be restricted to preserve public order.c)Succeed as annihilation of people is essential to their religion and an announcement of the same is thus permitted.d)Failas though believing annihilation of people is essential to their religion, announcing it is not.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths.(Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).Q.Riots have just taken place in the small town of Mirzapur. Religious tempers were simmering. In this atmosphere, a small group of violent people from each religion decided to start announcing that the only path to salvation was the annihilation of the people of the other sect. The government decided to outlaw any public religious announcements in Mirzapur. Both the groups challenged this action. Their challenge will –a)Succeed as their announcements are profession and propagation of their religion, which is protected by Article 25.b)Fail as their right to make religious announcements can be restricted to preserve public order.c)Succeed as annihilation of people is essential to their religion and an announcement of the same is thus permitted.d)Failas though believing annihilation of people is essential to their religion, announcing it is not.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths.(Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).Q.Riots have just taken place in the small town of Mirzapur. Religious tempers were simmering. In this atmosphere, a small group of violent people from each religion decided to start announcing that the only path to salvation was the annihilation of the people of the other sect. The government decided to outlaw any public religious announcements in Mirzapur. Both the groups challenged this action. Their challenge will –a)Succeed as their announcements are profession and propagation of their religion, which is protected by Article 25.b)Fail as their right to make religious announcements can be restricted to preserve public order.c)Succeed as annihilation of people is essential to their religion and an announcement of the same is thus permitted.d)Failas though believing annihilation of people is essential to their religion, announcing it is not.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths.(Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).Q.Riots have just taken place in the small town of Mirzapur. Religious tempers were simmering. In this atmosphere, a small group of violent people from each religion decided to start announcing that the only path to salvation was the annihilation of the people of the other sect. The government decided to outlaw any public religious announcements in Mirzapur. Both the groups challenged this action. Their challenge will –a)Succeed as their announcements are profession and propagation of their religion, which is protected by Article 25.b)Fail as their right to make religious announcements can be restricted to preserve public order.c)Succeed as annihilation of people is essential to their religion and an announcement of the same is thus permitted.d)Failas though believing annihilation of people is essential to their religion, announcing it is not.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths.(Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).Q.Riots have just taken place in the small town of Mirzapur. Religious tempers were simmering. In this atmosphere, a small group of violent people from each religion decided to start announcing that the only path to salvation was the annihilation of the people of the other sect. The government decided to outlaw any public religious announcements in Mirzapur. Both the groups challenged this action. Their challenge will –a)Succeed as their announcements are profession and propagation of their religion, which is protected by Article 25.b)Fail as their right to make religious announcements can be restricted to preserve public order.c)Succeed as annihilation of people is essential to their religion and an announcement of the same is thus permitted.d)Failas though believing annihilation of people is essential to their religion, announcing it is not.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths.(Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).Q.Riots have just taken place in the small town of Mirzapur. Religious tempers were simmering. In this atmosphere, a small group of violent people from each religion decided to start announcing that the only path to salvation was the annihilation of the people of the other sect. The government decided to outlaw any public religious announcements in Mirzapur. Both the groups challenged this action. Their challenge will –a)Succeed as their announcements are profession and propagation of their religion, which is protected by Article 25.b)Fail as their right to make religious announcements can be restricted to preserve public order.c)Succeed as annihilation of people is essential to their religion and an announcement of the same is thus permitted.d)Failas though believing annihilation of people is essential to their religion, announcing it is not.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage: Article 25 guarantees the right to “profess, practice and propagate religion, but also permits the State to regulate „economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice, as well as provide for „social welfare and reform of Hindu religious institutions. Article 26 guarantees religious denominations, among other things, freedom to manage their religious affairs. However, the protection is extended only to the practices considered essential to the religion. The State can still restrict the right on the grounds of public order, health and morality.Litigation around these two Articles has broadly centred on two issues. The first is the distinction between the religious and secular, particularly in the case of Hinduism. The Court has dealt with this by bringing into play an „essential practices test to decide what is essential to Hinduism and used it to distinguish between the sacred and the secular. The Court’s intervention to decide what is religious and what is not in a secular, constitutional culture is hardly peculiar to India. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, in most constitutional settings courts „have to determine whether or not a policy places a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. This might require the court to have not just a definition of religion but also to determine whether a particular practice counts as falling under that definition. What is unusual, however, is the Indian Supreme Court’s activism in fashioning religion in the way the State or the judges would likeit to be, rather than accept religion as practised by believers. The courts have upheld several practices as essential, but not along with the added elements and their outgrowths.(Ronojoy Sen, Secularism and Religious Freedom).Q.Riots have just taken place in the small town of Mirzapur. Religious tempers were simmering. In this atmosphere, a small group of violent people from each religion decided to start announcing that the only path to salvation was the annihilation of the people of the other sect. The government decided to outlaw any public religious announcements in Mirzapur. Both the groups challenged this action. Their challenge will –a)Succeed as their announcements are profession and propagation of their religion, which is protected by Article 25.b)Fail as their right to make religious announcements can be restricted to preserve public order.c)Succeed as annihilation of people is essential to their religion and an announcement of the same is thus permitted.d)Failas though believing annihilation of people is essential to their religion, announcing it is not.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.