Right to Freedom of Religion (Art. 25-28)
The Part III of the Constitution under Articles 25-28 prescribe for certain religious freedoms
for citizens. They include freedom of conscience of free pursuit of profession, practice and
propagation of religion, freedom to manage religious affairs, freedom to payment of taxes for
promotion of any particular religion and freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or
religious worship in certain educational institutions. In short, these are vital rights of religious
minorities in India.

Article 25 and 26 talk about right to freedom of religion. These articles indicate that each and every religion will have its own standing in the country and the state is not going to discriminate against any religion, neither favor any religion. State is going to adopt a non-discriminatory approach when treating different religions. Even when the word ‘secular’ was not added to the constitution, still the provision of the constitution was indicative of the secular nature. State not having its own religion does not mean that its irreligion. It means that the state equally respects all the different religions and its beliefs in religion, just that it does not has its own religion. That’s what the meaning of secularism is in our country. When a layman would look at the preamble, it would become clear to him that the provisions that are given inside the constitution indicate its secular nature. With those objectives in mind, the word ‘secular’ came to be added. The supreme court elevated secularism as a concept to say that it is a part of basic structure. When a feature becomes a part of basic structure, it would mean that it occupies transidental position and it will not be in the parliament’s capacity to change that.  articles relating to religious freedom can be categorized as saying that the articles provide for individual and group rights. Article 25 talks about individual right because it gives the individual the opportunity to practice his religion of his own choice. Article 26 talks about religious denomination, that is why article 26 is said to be a group right.

Article 25 says that each person will have the freedom of conscience and right to freely practice the religion of his own choice, whereas article 26 says that religious denomination is right of a religious sect. Just like any other fundamental right under the constitution, though the restrictions are there in article 25 and 26, it is not an unfettered right because there are restrictions mentioned under article 25 which says that right of religion is subject to public order, health and morality and other provisions relating to fundamental rights. Article 25 is the only fundamental right which has been made subject to other fundamental right of this part.

Commissioner, Hindu religious endowments, madras vs. Sri lakshmindar thirtha swamiar of Sri shirur mutt –

This was a landmark decision, not only for the incorporation of essential religious practices, but also for other purposes. Different aspects of this right of religious freedom came to be discussed by the supreme court. It says that not only a person has the right to entertain his beliefs which according to his own judgement he forms or which according to his conscience he forms, but this right of religious freedom would also include his right to exhibit his belief and ideas in such overt of outward acts and practices as are sanctioned or enjoyed by his religion. To have certain beliefs in your mind and to practice those beliefs is a different thing, but to exhibit those beliefs is an altogether different thing.  in this case supreme court says that this right of religious freedom is also extended to propagation dissemination of religious beliefs, ideas and views for the benefit and education of others.

Durgah committee vs. Hussain ali –

In this case the court for the first time said that the court needs to be very critical and observant to find out what are superstitious beliefs, because there are at times that the superstitious beliefs can be passed off as an integral part of religion. The courts have evolved with respect to religion, and they have taken a stand of pro-reform with respect to religion. The freedom of religion is being interpreted by courts so as to uphold the dignity of the individual.

Rev stainislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh –

In this case the court as more narrow-minded in interpreting ‘propagate’ when compared to shirur mutt case. Supreme court said that there is a necessity to draw a line to identify what are the matters of religion and what are not. What constitutes the essential part of religion is to be ascertained by the doctrines of that religion itself.  for courts to come down to the determination of essential religious practices, it’s the doctrine of religion that is to be looked into.

Tilkayat shri govindlalji maharaj vs. State of rajasthan-

In this case the supreme court talks about the test to be applied. It says that if members of that religion cannot unanimously agree on a religious practice, supreme court will look into the religious scriptures, study it and accordingly make a mind for itself whether the practice in question can be said to be an essential or integral religious practice or not.

Article 26 talks about certain rights being given to a religious denomination. For an association for the people of the community of a particular religion, they should have a common faith between them, following common religious tenets between themselves which are different from people who are not a part of that group. This religious sect should also have a distinct name for itself. It all these things are present, then only we can say that a particular religious sect can be called as a religious denomination. These conditions don’t have to be present in every situation. The court says that the right to administer the educational institution or religious or charitable institution will be available to the religious denomination.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.