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.A particular temple in Maharashtra played religious songs all night on loudspeakers for thirteen days in a row, citing the beginning of Navratri. This was an auspicious period, during which it was necessary for the people of the religion to pray to the deity all night through music. An aggrieved resident of the nearby society filed a case against temples using speakers at odd hours. The followers of the religion argued that this practice is integral for them. The Court will decide –a)In favor of the aggrieved resident as playing religious songs may be essential, but playing songs through speakers or through a certain mode cannot be an essential practice.b)In favor of the temple as the freedom to practice religion includes freedom to practice it in any way.c)In favor of the aggrieved resident as the loudspeakers create a racket and that is against public interest.d)In favor of the temple as no public interest is violated.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.A particular temple in Maharashtra played religious songs all night on loudspeakers for thirteen days in a row, citing the beginning of Navratri. This was an auspicious period, during which it was necessary for the people of the religion to pray to the deity all night through music. An aggrieved resident of the nearby society filed a case against temples using speakers at odd hours. The followers of the religion argued that this practice is integral for them. The Court will decide –a)In favor of the aggrieved resident as playing religious songs may be essential, but playing songs through speakers or through a certain mode cannot be an essential practice.b)In favor of the temple as the freedom to practice religion includes freedom to practice it in any way.c)In favor of the aggrieved resident as the loudspeakers create a racket and that is against public interest.d)In favor of the temple as no public interest is violated.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.A particular temple in Maharashtra played religious songs all night on loudspeakers for thirteen days in a row, citing the beginning of Navratri. This was an auspicious period, during which it was necessary for the people of the religion to pray to the deity all night through music. An aggrieved resident of the nearby society filed a case against temples using speakers at odd hours. The followers of the religion argued that this practice is integral for them. The Court will decide –a)In favor of the aggrieved resident as playing religious songs may be essential, but playing songs through speakers or through a certain mode cannot be an essential practice.b)In favor of the temple as the freedom to practice religion includes freedom to practice it in any way.c)In favor of the aggrieved resident as the loudspeakers create a racket and that is against public interest.d)In favor of the temple as no public interest is violated.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.A particular temple in Maharashtra played religious songs all night on loudspeakers for thirteen days in a row, citing the beginning of Navratri. This was an auspicious period, during which it was necessary for the people of the religion to pray to the deity all night through music. An aggrieved resident of the nearby society filed a case against temples using speakers at odd hours. The followers of the religion argued that this practice is integral for them. The Court will decide –a)In favor of the aggrieved resident as playing religious songs may be essential, but playing songs through speakers or through a certain mode cannot be an essential practice.b)In favor of the temple as the freedom to practice religion includes freedom to practice it in any way.c)In favor of the aggrieved resident as the loudspeakers create a racket and that is against public interest.d)In favor of the temple as no public interest is violated.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.A particular temple in Maharashtra played religious songs all night on loudspeakers for thirteen days in a row, citing the beginning of Navratri. This was an auspicious period, during which it was necessary for the people of the religion to pray to the deity all night through music. An aggrieved resident of the nearby society filed a case against temples using speakers at odd hours. The followers of the religion argued that this practice is integral for them. The Court will decide –a)In favor of the aggrieved resident as playing religious songs may be essential, but playing songs through speakers or through a certain mode cannot be an essential practice.b)In favor of the temple as the freedom to practice religion includes freedom to practice it in any way.c)In favor of the aggrieved resident as the loudspeakers create a racket and that is against public interest.d)In favor of the temple as no public interest is violated.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.A particular temple in Maharashtra played religious songs all night on loudspeakers for thirteen days in a row, citing the beginning of Navratri. This was an auspicious period, during which it was necessary for the people of the religion to pray to the deity all night through music. An aggrieved resident of the nearby society filed a case against temples using speakers at odd hours. The followers of the religion argued that this practice is integral for them. The Court will decide –a)In favor of the aggrieved resident as playing religious songs may be essential, but playing songs through speakers or through a certain mode cannot be an essential practice.b)In favor of the temple as the freedom to practice religion includes freedom to practice it in any way.c)In favor of the aggrieved resident as the loudspeakers create a racket and that is against public interest.d)In favor of the temple as no public interest is violated.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.A particular temple in Maharashtra played religious songs all night on loudspeakers for thirteen days in a row, citing the beginning of Navratri. This was an auspicious period, during which it was necessary for the people of the religion to pray to the deity all night through music. An aggrieved resident of the nearby society filed a case against temples using speakers at odd hours. The followers of the religion argued that this practice is integral for them. The Court will decide –a)In favor of the aggrieved resident as playing religious songs may be essential, but playing songs through speakers or through a certain mode cannot be an essential practice.b)In favor of the temple as the freedom to practice religion includes freedom to practice it in any way.c)In favor of the aggrieved resident as the loudspeakers create a racket and that is against public interest.d)In favor of the temple as no public interest is violated.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.A particular temple in Maharashtra played religious songs all night on loudspeakers for thirteen days in a row, citing the beginning of Navratri. This was an auspicious period, during which it was necessary for the people of the religion to pray to the deity all night through music. An aggrieved resident of the nearby society filed a case against temples using speakers at odd hours. The followers of the religion argued that this practice is integral for them. The Court will decide –a)In favor of the aggrieved resident as playing religious songs may be essential, but playing songs through speakers or through a certain mode cannot be an essential practice.b)In favor of the temple as the freedom to practice religion includes freedom to practice it in any way.c)In favor of the aggrieved resident as the loudspeakers create a racket and that is against public interest.d)In favor of the temple as no public interest is violated.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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.A particular temple in Maharashtra played religious songs all night on loudspeakers for thirteen days in a row, citing the beginning of Navratri. This was an auspicious period, during which it was necessary for the people of the religion to pray to the deity all night through music. An aggrieved resident of the nearby society filed a case against temples using speakers at odd hours. The followers of the religion argued that this practice is integral for them. The Court will decide –a)In favor of the aggrieved resident as playing religious songs may be essential, but playing songs through speakers or through a certain mode cannot be an essential practice.b)In favor of the temple as the freedom to practice religion includes freedom to practice it in any way.c)In favor of the aggrieved resident as the loudspeakers create a racket and that is against public interest.d)In favor of the temple as no public interest is violated.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.