Right to Freedom of Religion: Article 25-28 | Constitutional Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Secularism: Freedom of Religion, Judicial Interpretation, and Restrictions

India is a diverse nation with numerous religious groups. However, the Constitution establishes India as a  secular state  , as emphasized in the Preamble by the  Forty-second Amendment  in 1976. Secularism is considered a fundamental aspect of the Constitution, meaning there is no official religion in India. The state treats all religions equally and does not favor any particular religion.

Freedom of Religion

What is Religion?

Constitutional Provisions for Freedom of Religion

• Article 25: Ensures freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
• Article 26: Grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs, establish institutions, and own property.
• Article 27: Prohibits compelling individuals to pay taxes for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion.
• Article 28: Regulates religious instruction and worship in educational institutions funded by the state.

Judicial Trends on Right to Freedom of Religion 

The right to freedom of religion, as enshrined in the Constitution, encompasses the freedom to  profess, practice, and propagate  religion. Let's understand these terms:

• Profess  : This means to declare one's faith and belief openly and freely.
• Practice  : This involves performing religious duties, rites, and rituals as prescribed by one's faith.
• Propagate  : This refers to spreading and publicizing one's religious views to educate others about one's beliefs. However, it does not include the right to convert someone to your religion, as that would infringe upon their freedom of conscience.

The judiciary has played a crucial role in maintaining a balance between these freedoms and restrictions. Through various cases, the courts have upheld the significance of  secularism  while also respecting the right to  religion  .

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 

• In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the  dismissal of BJP governments  in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh following the Ayodhya incident.
• The Court emphasized that  secularism is a basic feature  of the Constitution and that any State Government acting against this principle could be dismissed by the President.

The National Anthem Case: Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 

• In this case, three children from the Jehovah's Witness sect were expelled from school for refusing to sing the national anthem "Jana Gana Mana" due to their religious beliefs.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the expulsion violated the children's  freedom of religion  and that there was no legal obligation to sing the national anthem.
• The Court held that standing in silence during the anthem was not disrespectful and upheld the children's right to practice their faith.

Appointment of Non-Brahmins as Pujari: N. Aditya v. Travancore Devaswom Board 

• The case revolved around the appointment of a non-Malayala Brahmin as 'Santhikaran' (Priest or Pujari) at the Kongorpilly Neerikode Siva Temple in Kerala.
• The court ruled that as long as a person is  qualified and trained  to perform the puja appropriately, they could be appointed as 'Santhikaran' regardless of their caste.
• In this instance, the temple did not have a specific form of worship that restricted appointments based on caste.

Acquisition of Places of Worship by the State 

• In the case of  M Ismail Faruqi v. Union of India  , the Supreme Court ruled that a mosque is not an essential part of Islam, and prayers (Namaz) can be offered anywhere, not just in a mosque.
• In  M Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das  , the Supreme Court affirmed the state's prerogative to acquire places of worship such as mosques, churches, and temples. However, the acquisition of places of worship is not a violation of Articles 25 and 26 unless the place is essential for the religion's practice.
• If the acquisition of a place of worship breaches the right to practice religion, it cannot be permitted.

Triple Talaq: Shayara Bano v. Union of India 

• Triple Talaq, or Talaq-e-biddat, allowed a Muslim man to divorce his wife by saying "talaq" three times.
• A Supreme Court bench of five judges examined whether this practice was a matter of faith for Muslims and part of their personal law.
• By a 3:2 majority, the Court declared Talaq-e-biddat illegal and unconstitutional.
• The Court imposed an injunction against the practice until legislation was enacted.
• The government introduced the  Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017  , leading to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which aimed to protect the rights of married Muslim women and prohibit triple talaq.

Noise Pollution in the Name of Religion 

• In the case of  Church of God (Full Gospel) v K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association  , the Supreme Court ruled that no religion mandates prayers to be performed with loud drums or amplifiers that disturb others' peace.
• Religious practices should not infringe on others' rights or disturb their activities.
• Article 25(1) prohibits acts in the name of religion that go against public order, morality, or health, such as untouchability or human trafficking.

Article 26 - Religious Denomination 

• The term 'religious denomination' is not explicitly defined in the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court addressed the concept of 'denomination' in  Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowment Madras v. Shri Laxmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shri Shirur Mutt  . The Court referred to the Oxford dictionary definition of 'denomination' as a group of individuals sharing a common faith and organization under a distinctive name.

Bramchari Sidheshwar Bhai v. State of West Bengal 

• The Ram Krishna Mission sought to be recognized as a non-Hindu minority, allowing its members to be treated as Hindus for legal purposes but non-Hindus for religious matters.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the Ram Krishna Mission could not claim minority status based on a distinct religion, as it is not separate from Hinduism.
• Therefore, the Mission could not invoke Article 30(1) to establish and administer educational institutions as a religious minority.

Right to Establish and Maintain Institutions for Religious and Charitable Purposes: Azeez Basha v. Union of India 

• This case challenged amendments to the  Aligarh Muslim University Act  , arguing they violated Article 30 and the rights of the Muslim minority under Articles 25, 26, and 29.
• The Supreme Court determined that before 1920, there were no barriers preventing Muslims from establishing universities.
• The Aligarh Muslim University was created by central legislation (Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920) and cannot claim to have been established by the Muslim Community. It was not founded by the Muslim minority but by an act of the central government.

Breaking of Coconuts, Chanting Mantras, and Sutras at State Functions: Atheist Society of India v. Government of A.P. 

• The Atheist Society of India petitioned the Andhra Pradesh government to prohibit religious practices like breaking coconuts and chanting mantras at State functions, arguing these practices violated the Constitution's secular policy.
• The court rejected the petition, stating that allowing such practices would infringe on the right to religion and secularism, which is fundamental to the Constitution.
• Permitting these practices would undermine the freedom of thought, faith, and worship.

Limitations of the Right 

• The right to religion under  Article 26  is not absolute and is subject to limitations.
• If a religious practice contravenes public order, morality, or health, it cannot claim protection under the right to religion.

Freedom from Taxes for Promotion of Any Particular Religion (Art. 27) 

• Article 27 prevents individuals from being compelled to pay taxes for the promotion or maintenance of any religion or religious denomination.
• In the case of  Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt  , the Supreme Court upheld the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951, which levied contributions for the administration of religious institutions.
• The Court ruled that the contributions, although considered taxes, were for the proper administration of the religious institution and did not violate Article 27.

Prohibition of Religious Instruction in State-aided Institutions (Art. 28) 

• Article 28 prohibits providing religious instruction in educational institutions maintained wholly out of state funds.
• This provision does not apply to educational institutions administered by the state but established under endowment or trust requiring religious instruction.