Right to Freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and 26 of Part III of the Indian Constitution is subject to public morality, public order and public health. To preserve the cultural rights, Art. 25 of the Constitution not only guarantees the right to follow any religion but also to profess, practice and propagate religious beliefs. The rights under Articles 25 and 26 are not absolute or unfettered but subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are associated with the religious behalf, faith, practice or custom and they are also subject to social reform by suitable legislation.Article 26 gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.The Apex court of India held that every religion has basic fundamental principles to be followed by the followers without which the following of a religion is in vain, still such essential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India and even if a particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.The Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay observed that the exception was carved in Art. 25 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Freedom of Religion enabling the state to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform was not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of its existence or identity. It was also stated that even while bringing in such a social reform it is not permissible to change the entire practice or acts done in pursuance of such religion.Hence it is the duty of the court to ensure that in the name of effecting social reform, the legislature does not efface a religion altogether, by doing away with its basic or essential doctrines or practices. The concept of social reforms was inherited by the Indian constitution under Article 25(2)(b) without impairing the freedom of religion.Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on the use of loudspeakers. Will this lead to a violation of professing one’s religion under Article 25?a)Yes, as this is a restriction imposed on the practice of religion and the same is violating Article 25.b)Yes, as this also violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.c)No, as this falls within the reasonable restriction as mandated by Article 25 of disrupting public order.d)Yes, as the reach of religious propagation and beliefs is curtailed if the usage of loudspeakers is restricted.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Right to Freedom to practice religion under ...

Join the Discussion on the App

Article 26 gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.

The Apex court of India held that every religion has basic fundamental principles to be followed by the followers without which the following of a religion is in vain, still such essential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India and even if a particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.

The Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay observed that the exception was carved in Art. 25 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Freedom of Religion enabling the state to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform was not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of its existence or identity. It was also stated that even while bringing in such a social reform it is not permissible to change the entire practice or acts done in pursuance of such religion.

Hence it is the duty of the court to ensure that in the name of effecting social reform, the legislature does not efface a religion altogether, by doing away with its basic or essential doctrines or practices. The concept of social reforms was inherited by the Indian constitution under Article 25(2)(b) without impairing the freedom of religion.

Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on the use of loudspeakers. Will this lead to a violation of professing one’s religion under Article 25?

a)
Yes, as this is a restriction imposed on the practice of religion and the same is violating Article 25.
b)
Yes, as this also violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.
c)
No, as this falls within the reasonable restriction as mandated by Article 25 of disrupting public order.
d)
Yes, as the reach of religious propagation and beliefs is curtailed if the usage of loudspeakers is restricted.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CLAT Practice Test - 14

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Right to Freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and 26 of Part...

No. As no religion practice is allowed to disrupt the harmony of the community. Usage of loudspeakers disrupts public order. So reasonable restriction can be placed on their usage.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. Sahil, an Indian citizen, submitted a petition to the High Court, contesting the constitutional validity of a state law that permitted private companies to acquire agricultural land for industrial purposes without obtaining the consent of farmers. Sahils argument centered on the assertion that this law contravened the Directive Principles of State Policy found in Part IV of the Constitution. These principles mandate that the state must safeguard the interests of farmers and promote agriculture. In response, the state government argued that the law was valid because it had been enacted to attract investments and generate employment opportunities, which are also significant constitutional objectives. Which of the following options accurately characterizes the relationship between the Directive Principles of State Policy and the fundamental rights of citizens?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens certain fundamental freedoms, which are recognized as their fundamental rights. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of India are not absolute as no right can be. Each of these fundamental rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislatures. Accordingly, the Constitution of India lays down the grounds and the purposes for which a legislature can impose reasonable restrictions on the rights guaranteed to citizens. The State cannot travel beyond the contours of these reasonable restrictions in curbing the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. While determining the constitutional validity of a restriction imposed on a fundamental right by a legislation, the Court is not concerned with the necessity of the restriction or the wisdom of the policy underlying it, but only whether the restriction is in excess of the requirement, and whether the legislature has overstepped the Constitutional limitations. Two of the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of India are- the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of India. However, the State may impose reasonable restrictions on these rights by law, in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled tribes.Q.A law was enacted by the Parliament of India which consisted of a provision making it mandatory for every person riding a two-wheeler in India, to wear a helmet, failing which such person was made liable to a fine. Mr. X, a citizen of India, was fined for violation of the said provision. Mr. X challenged the constitutional validity of the said provision. In the given situation, which of the following statements is/are correct?

View answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.Part IV of the Constitution contains Directive Principles of State Policy which provide guidelines for the government to govern the country. These Directives are different from the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution and the ordinary laws of the land in several respects. They are not enforceable in courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favor of individuals. They require implementation by legislation and do not confer or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles, nor can they compel the government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. However, it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives subject to the limitations imposed by different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of legislative and executive power by the state The Sub-committee on Fundamental Rights constituted by the Constituent Assembly suggested two types of Fundamental Rights — one which can be enforced in the Courts of law and the other which because of their different nature cannot be enforced in the law Courts. Later on however, the former were put under the head ‘Fundamental Rights’ as Part III which we have already discussed and the latter were put separately in Part IV of the Constitution under the heading ‘Directive Principles of State Policy’ which are discussed in the following pages. The Articles included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 36 to 51) contain certain Directives which are the guidelines for the Government to lead the country. Article 37 provides that the ‘provisions contained in this part (i) shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles therein laid down are neverthless (ii) fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws. The Directives, however, differ from the fundamental rights contained in PartIII of the Constitution or the ordinary laws of the land in the following respects: (i) The Directives are not enforceable in the courts and do not create any justiciable rights in favour of individuals. (ii) The Directives require to be implemented by legislation and so long as there is no law carrying out the policy laid down in a Directive, neither the state nor an individual can violate any existing law. (iii) The Directives per-se do not confer upon or take away any legislative power from the appropriate legislature. (iv) The courts cannot declare any law as void on the ground that it contravenes any of the Directive Principles. (v) The courts are not competent to compel the Government to carry out any Directives or to make any law for that purpose. (vi) Though it is the duty of the state to implement the Directives, it can do so only subject to the limitations imposed by the different provisions of the Constitution upon the exercise of the legislative and executive power by the state.Q. What is the duty of the state regarding the implementation of Directive Principles?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions.The Supreme Court Thursday refused to entertain a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which lays down automatic disqualification of a legislator from the parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case [Aabha Muralidharan vs Union of India]. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala said that the petitioner is not personally affected by the provision and the Court will not entertain the challenge. The basic disqualification criteria for an MP are outlined in Article 102 of the Constitution, while those for an MLA are outlined in Article 191. Article 102 empowers the Parliament to enact legislation governing the conditions of disqualification. Grounds for disqualification under the Constitution include conditions such as holding a profit-making position in the Government of India or a state government, Being of unsound mind, being an unpaid insolvent, not being an Indian citizen, or acquiring citizenship of another country. There are other ways in which a legislator can get disqualified too. For example- In the Tenth Schedule: A person is ineligible to serve as a member of the Legislative Assembly (ML

View answer

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage.The most remarkable achievement in post-constitution India is the exercise of the power of the judicial review by the superior courts. So long as this power is wielded by the courts effectively and fearlessly, democracy will remain ensured in India and, with all its shortcomings, the Constitution will survive. The numerous applications for the constitutional writs before the High Courts and the Supreme Court and their results testify to the establishment in India of 'limited government', or, 'the government of laws, not of men', as they call it in the United States of America. The Supreme Court has well performed its task of protecting the rights of the individual against the executive, against oppressive legislations and even against the Legislature itself, when it becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges not only against the individual citizens but even against the judges.At the same time, it should be observed that neither the guarantee of the Fundamental Rights nor its adjunct 'Judicial Review' could have full play during the first quarter of a century of the working of our Constitution owing to their erosion by Proclamations of Emergency over a substantial period of time. It is true that the Emergency provisions are as much a part of the Constitution of India as any other, and that history has proved the need for such powers to meet extraordinary situations, but, broadly speaking, if the application of the Emergency provisions overshadows the other features of the Constitution, the balance between the 'normal' and 'emergency' provisions is palpably destroyed. Even, apart from Emergency, there has been an astounding erosion of Fundamental Rights owing to multiple amendments of the Constitution.The means to prevent any such conflict between competing interests is to process all proposals for constitutional amendments through an expert and objective machinery, which would ensure the progressive adaptation of the Constitution to the Copernican changes in the social, economic and political background.Q. What possible dangers does the author envisage when an institution becomes overzealous in asserting its privileges?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Right to Freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and 26 of Part III of the Indian Constitution is subject to public morality, public order and public health. To preserve the cultural rights, Art. 25 of the Constitution not only guarantees the right to follow any religion but also to profess, practice and propagate religious beliefs. The rights under Articles 25 & 26 are not absolute or unfettered but subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are associated with the religious behalf, faith, practice or custom and they are also subject to social reform by suitable legislation.Article 26 gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.The Apex court of India held that every religion has basic fundamental principles to be followed by the followers without which the following of a religion is in vain, still such essential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India and even if a particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.The Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay observed that the exception was carved in Art. 25 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Freedom of Religion enabling the state to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform was not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of its existence or identity. It was also stated that even while bringing in such a social reform it is not permissible to change the entire practice or acts done in pursuance of such religion.Hence it is the duty of the court to ensure that in the name of effecting social reform, the legislature does not efface a religion altogether, by doing away with its basic or essential doctrines or practices. The concept of social reforms was inherited by the Indian constitution under Article 25(2)(b) without impairing the freedom of religion.Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on the use of loudspeakers. Will this lead to a violation of professing one’s religion under Article 25?a)Yes, as this is a restriction imposed on the practice of religion and the same is violating Article 25.b)Yes, as this also violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.c)No, as this falls within the reasonable restriction as mandated by Article 25 of disrupting public order.d)Yes, as the reach of religious propagation and beliefs is curtailed if the usage of loudspeakers is restricted.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Right to Freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and 26 of Part III of the Indian Constitution is subject to public morality, public order and public health. To preserve the cultural rights, Art. 25 of the Constitution not only guarantees the right to follow any religion but also to profess, practice and propagate religious beliefs. The rights under Articles 25 & 26 are not absolute or unfettered but subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are associated with the religious behalf, faith, practice or custom and they are also subject to social reform by suitable legislation.Article 26 gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.The Apex court of India held that every religion has basic fundamental principles to be followed by the followers without which the following of a religion is in vain, still such essential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India and even if a particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.The Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay observed that the exception was carved in Art. 25 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Freedom of Religion enabling the state to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform was not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of its existence or identity. It was also stated that even while bringing in such a social reform it is not permissible to change the entire practice or acts done in pursuance of such religion.Hence it is the duty of the court to ensure that in the name of effecting social reform, the legislature does not efface a religion altogether, by doing away with its basic or essential doctrines or practices. The concept of social reforms was inherited by the Indian constitution under Article 25(2)(b) without impairing the freedom of religion.Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on the use of loudspeakers. Will this lead to a violation of professing one’s religion under Article 25?a)Yes, as this is a restriction imposed on the practice of religion and the same is violating Article 25.b)Yes, as this also violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.c)No, as this falls within the reasonable restriction as mandated by Article 25 of disrupting public order.d)Yes, as the reach of religious propagation and beliefs is curtailed if the usage of loudspeakers is restricted.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 Right to Freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and 26 of Part III of the Indian Constitution is subject to public morality, public order and public health. To preserve the cultural rights, Art. 25 of the Constitution not only guarantees the right to follow any religion but also to profess, practice and propagate religious beliefs. The rights under Articles 25 & 26 are not absolute or unfettered but subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are associated with the religious behalf, faith, practice or custom and they are also subject to social reform by suitable legislation.Article 26 gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.The Apex court of India held that every religion has basic fundamental principles to be followed by the followers without which the following of a religion is in vain, still such essential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India and even if a particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.The Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay observed that the exception was carved in Art. 25 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Freedom of Religion enabling the state to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform was not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of its existence or identity. It was also stated that even while bringing in such a social reform it is not permissible to change the entire practice or acts done in pursuance of such religion.Hence it is the duty of the court to ensure that in the name of effecting social reform, the legislature does not efface a religion altogether, by doing away with its basic or essential doctrines or practices. The concept of social reforms was inherited by the Indian constitution under Article 25(2)(b) without impairing the freedom of religion.Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on the use of loudspeakers. Will this lead to a violation of professing one’s religion under Article 25?a)Yes, as this is a restriction imposed on the practice of religion and the same is violating Article 25.b)Yes, as this also violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.c)No, as this falls within the reasonable restriction as mandated by Article 25 of disrupting public order.d)Yes, as the reach of religious propagation and beliefs is curtailed if the usage of loudspeakers is restricted.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Right to Freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and 26 of Part III of the Indian Constitution is subject to public morality, public order and public health. To preserve the cultural rights, Art. 25 of the Constitution not only guarantees the right to follow any religion but also to profess, practice and propagate religious beliefs. The rights under Articles 25 & 26 are not absolute or unfettered but subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are associated with the religious behalf, faith, practice or custom and they are also subject to social reform by suitable legislation.Article 26 gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.The Apex court of India held that every religion has basic fundamental principles to be followed by the followers without which the following of a religion is in vain, still such essential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India and even if a particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.The Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay observed that the exception was carved in Art. 25 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Freedom of Religion enabling the state to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform was not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of its existence or identity. It was also stated that even while bringing in such a social reform it is not permissible to change the entire practice or acts done in pursuance of such religion.Hence it is the duty of the court to ensure that in the name of effecting social reform, the legislature does not efface a religion altogether, by doing away with its basic or essential doctrines or practices. The concept of social reforms was inherited by the Indian constitution under Article 25(2)(b) without impairing the freedom of religion.Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on the use of loudspeakers. Will this lead to a violation of professing one’s religion under Article 25?a)Yes, as this is a restriction imposed on the practice of religion and the same is violating Article 25.b)Yes, as this also violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.c)No, as this falls within the reasonable restriction as mandated by Article 25 of disrupting public order.d)Yes, as the reach of religious propagation and beliefs is curtailed if the usage of loudspeakers is restricted.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Right to Freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and 26 of Part III of the Indian Constitution is subject to public morality, public order and public health. To preserve the cultural rights, Art. 25 of the Constitution not only guarantees the right to follow any religion but also to profess, practice and propagate religious beliefs. The rights under Articles 25 & 26 are not absolute or unfettered but subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are associated with the religious behalf, faith, practice or custom and they are also subject to social reform by suitable legislation.Article 26 gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.The Apex court of India held that every religion has basic fundamental principles to be followed by the followers without which the following of a religion is in vain, still such essential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India and even if a particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.The Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay observed that the exception was carved in Art. 25 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Freedom of Religion enabling the state to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform was not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of its existence or identity. It was also stated that even while bringing in such a social reform it is not permissible to change the entire practice or acts done in pursuance of such religion.Hence it is the duty of the court to ensure that in the name of effecting social reform, the legislature does not efface a religion altogether, by doing away with its basic or essential doctrines or practices. The concept of social reforms was inherited by the Indian constitution under Article 25(2)(b) without impairing the freedom of religion.Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on the use of loudspeakers. Will this lead to a violation of professing one’s religion under Article 25?a)Yes, as this is a restriction imposed on the practice of religion and the same is violating Article 25.b)Yes, as this also violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.c)No, as this falls within the reasonable restriction as mandated by Article 25 of disrupting public order.d)Yes, as the reach of religious propagation and beliefs is curtailed if the usage of loudspeakers is restricted.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 Right to Freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and 26 of Part III of the Indian Constitution is subject to public morality, public order and public health. To preserve the cultural rights, Art. 25 of the Constitution not only guarantees the right to follow any religion but also to profess, practice and propagate religious beliefs. The rights under Articles 25 & 26 are not absolute or unfettered but subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are associated with the religious behalf, faith, practice or custom and they are also subject to social reform by suitable legislation.Article 26 gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.The Apex court of India held that every religion has basic fundamental principles to be followed by the followers without which the following of a religion is in vain, still such essential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India and even if a particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.The Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay observed that the exception was carved in Art. 25 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Freedom of Religion enabling the state to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform was not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of its existence or identity. It was also stated that even while bringing in such a social reform it is not permissible to change the entire practice or acts done in pursuance of such religion.Hence it is the duty of the court to ensure that in the name of effecting social reform, the legislature does not efface a religion altogether, by doing away with its basic or essential doctrines or practices. The concept of social reforms was inherited by the Indian constitution under Article 25(2)(b) without impairing the freedom of religion.Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on the use of loudspeakers. Will this lead to a violation of professing one’s religion under Article 25?a)Yes, as this is a restriction imposed on the practice of religion and the same is violating Article 25.b)Yes, as this also violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.c)No, as this falls within the reasonable restriction as mandated by Article 25 of disrupting public order.d)Yes, as the reach of religious propagation and beliefs is curtailed if the usage of loudspeakers is restricted.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Right to Freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and 26 of Part III of the Indian Constitution is subject to public morality, public order and public health. To preserve the cultural rights, Art. 25 of the Constitution not only guarantees the right to follow any religion but also to profess, practice and propagate religious beliefs. The rights under Articles 25 & 26 are not absolute or unfettered but subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are associated with the religious behalf, faith, practice or custom and they are also subject to social reform by suitable legislation.Article 26 gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.The Apex court of India held that every religion has basic fundamental principles to be followed by the followers without which the following of a religion is in vain, still such essential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India and even if a particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.The Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay observed that the exception was carved in Art. 25 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Freedom of Religion enabling the state to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform was not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of its existence or identity. It was also stated that even while bringing in such a social reform it is not permissible to change the entire practice or acts done in pursuance of such religion.Hence it is the duty of the court to ensure that in the name of effecting social reform, the legislature does not efface a religion altogether, by doing away with its basic or essential doctrines or practices. The concept of social reforms was inherited by the Indian constitution under Article 25(2)(b) without impairing the freedom of religion.Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on the use of loudspeakers. Will this lead to a violation of professing one’s religion under Article 25?a)Yes, as this is a restriction imposed on the practice of religion and the same is violating Article 25.b)Yes, as this also violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.c)No, as this falls within the reasonable restriction as mandated by Article 25 of disrupting public order.d)Yes, as the reach of religious propagation and beliefs is curtailed if the usage of loudspeakers is restricted.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Right to Freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and 26 of Part III of the Indian Constitution is subject to public morality, public order and public health. To preserve the cultural rights, Art. 25 of the Constitution not only guarantees the right to follow any religion but also to profess, practice and propagate religious beliefs. The rights under Articles 25 & 26 are not absolute or unfettered but subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are associated with the religious behalf, faith, practice or custom and they are also subject to social reform by suitable legislation.Article 26 gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.The Apex court of India held that every religion has basic fundamental principles to be followed by the followers without which the following of a religion is in vain, still such essential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India and even if a particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.The Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay observed that the exception was carved in Art. 25 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Freedom of Religion enabling the state to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform was not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of its existence or identity. It was also stated that even while bringing in such a social reform it is not permissible to change the entire practice or acts done in pursuance of such religion.Hence it is the duty of the court to ensure that in the name of effecting social reform, the legislature does not efface a religion altogether, by doing away with its basic or essential doctrines or practices. The concept of social reforms was inherited by the Indian constitution under Article 25(2)(b) without impairing the freedom of religion.Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on the use of loudspeakers. Will this lead to a violation of professing one’s religion under Article 25?a)Yes, as this is a restriction imposed on the practice of religion and the same is violating Article 25.b)Yes, as this also violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.c)No, as this falls within the reasonable restriction as mandated by Article 25 of disrupting public order.d)Yes, as the reach of religious propagation and beliefs is curtailed if the usage of loudspeakers is restricted.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Right to Freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and 26 of Part III of the Indian Constitution is subject to public morality, public order and public health. To preserve the cultural rights, Art. 25 of the Constitution not only guarantees the right to follow any religion but also to profess, practice and propagate religious beliefs. The rights under Articles 25 & 26 are not absolute or unfettered but subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are associated with the religious behalf, faith, practice or custom and they are also subject to social reform by suitable legislation.Article 26 gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.The Apex court of India held that every religion has basic fundamental principles to be followed by the followers without which the following of a religion is in vain, still such essential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India and even if a particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.The Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay observed that the exception was carved in Art. 25 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Freedom of Religion enabling the state to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform was not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of its existence or identity. It was also stated that even while bringing in such a social reform it is not permissible to change the entire practice or acts done in pursuance of such religion.Hence it is the duty of the court to ensure that in the name of effecting social reform, the legislature does not efface a religion altogether, by doing away with its basic or essential doctrines or practices. The concept of social reforms was inherited by the Indian constitution under Article 25(2)(b) without impairing the freedom of religion.Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on the use of loudspeakers. Will this lead to a violation of professing one’s religion under Article 25?a)Yes, as this is a restriction imposed on the practice of religion and the same is violating Article 25.b)Yes, as this also violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.c)No, as this falls within the reasonable restriction as mandated by Article 25 of disrupting public order.d)Yes, as the reach of religious propagation and beliefs is curtailed if the usage of loudspeakers is restricted.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Right to Freedom to practice religion under Article 25 and 26 of Part III of the Indian Constitution is subject to public morality, public order and public health. To preserve the cultural rights, Art. 25 of the Constitution not only guarantees the right to follow any religion but also to profess, practice and propagate religious beliefs. The rights under Articles 25 & 26 are not absolute or unfettered but subject to legislation by the State limiting or regulating any activity, economic, financial, political or secular which are associated with the religious behalf, faith, practice or custom and they are also subject to social reform by suitable legislation.Article 26 gives every religious group a right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not to aliens.The Apex court of India held that every religion has basic fundamental principles to be followed by the followers without which the following of a religion is in vain, still such essential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India and even if a particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.The Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Sydena Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay observed that the exception was carved in Art. 25 (2) of the Constitution of India to the Freedom of Religion enabling the state to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform was not intended to enable the legislature to reform a religion out of its existence or identity. It was also stated that even while bringing in such a social reform it is not permissible to change the entire practice or acts done in pursuance of such religion.Hence it is the duty of the court to ensure that in the name of effecting social reform, the legislature does not efface a religion altogether, by doing away with its basic or essential doctrines or practices. The concept of social reforms was inherited by the Indian constitution under Article 25(2)(b) without impairing the freedom of religion.Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on the use of loudspeakers. Will this lead to a violation of professing one’s religion under Article 25?a)Yes, as this is a restriction imposed on the practice of religion and the same is violating Article 25.b)Yes, as this also violates Article 26 of the Constitution of India.c)No, as this falls within the reasonable restriction as mandated by Article 25 of disrupting public order.d)Yes, as the reach of religious propagation and beliefs is curtailed if the usage of loudspeakers is restricted.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam