This article has been written by Ms. Damini Chauhan, a student of BBA.LLB (Hons), from United world school of law, Karnavati University, Gandhinagar. This author is a 5th year law student.

INTRODUCTION

Belief or faith are key components of religion. The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion under Articles 25 through Article 28 in recognition of the significance of religion in Indian society. Every person has the right and freedom to choose and practice their religion, according to the Indian Constitution, which envisions a secular society. The most significant case, Kesavananda Bharati, is one of many where the Apex Court has ruled that secularism is the fundamental tenet of the Constitution. The major religions practiced by Indians include Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Christianity. Religion-specific legislation exist in India, and Goa is the only state with a uniform civil code known as the Goa Civil Code. The Indian people appreciate and respect the various religions in the nation because the Constitution encourages religious peace.

• WHAT IS SECULARISM?

Respecting and learning about other religions is what secularism entails. It is thought that late mediaeval Europe is where the name “secularism” first appeared. The demand to add the word “Secular” to the Constitution’s Preamble was raised by the KT Shah in 1948 during the debate in the Constituent Assembly. Although the assembly members were in agreement that the constitution was secular, it was not included in the Preamble. Later, in 1976, the Indira Gandhi administration passed the 42nd Amendment Act, which inserted the word “Secular” to the Preamble. The 42nd Amendment Act, sometimes referred to as the “Mini Constitution,” is the Constitution’s most extensive amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution presupposes the equality of all faiths in the hotly contested Ayodhya issue. The secular commitment of our nation and its citizens can be strengthened via tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

• S. R. BOMMAI V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1994 SC 1918 

Secularism is the fundamental element of the Indian Constitution, according to the 9-judge panel who heard the case. It also made the observation that politics and religion should not coexist. When the State adopts no secular policies or practices, it violates the constitutional requirement. All people in a state are equal and ought to get the same treatment. In concerns of State, religion has no business. In India, everyone has the fundamental right to freedom of religion, yet from the standpoint of the State, religion, faith, and belief are meaningless.

• CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RIGHT OF RELIGION

Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.

Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs.

Article 27: Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.

Article 28: Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN INDIA (ART. 25)

Every Indian has the right to practice their religion freely, according to Article 25 of the Constitution. Subject to laws governing public morals, health, and other matters, it states that everyone in India shall equally entitled to religious freedom, including the ability to practice, profess, and spread their religion. 

Additionally, it states that nothing in this article will change any already-enacted laws and that nothing in this article will preclude the state from enacting laws relating to: 

• Any commercial, financial, political, or other secular action connected to a particular religion may be regulated or restricted.
• social reform and welfare provision.
• opening of public Hindu religious institutions for Hindus of all classes and backgrounds.

The Supreme Court ruled in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj V. State of Rajasthan that the key factor in determining whether or not something is considered to be a fundamental component of a religion is whether or not the community that practices that religion views it as such.

• DOCTRINE OR BELIEF?

The Bombay High Court ruled in Hasan Ali v. Mansoor Ali that Articles 25 and 26 prohibit acts committed in furtherance of religion as well as religious theories and beliefs. Thus, it ensures that religion will continue to include the ceremonies, ways of worship, rituals, observances, etc. In light of the beliefs and practices that the community considers to be a part of their religion and that must also be included in them, what is the fundamental or integral component of a religion must be determined.

In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, the Supreme Court determined that while there is no question that a religion’s foundation is found in the set of doctrines upheld by those who practice it, it is incorrect to say that religion consists solely of doctrines or beliefs.

Religion need not be theistic, the court said in SP Mittal v. Union of India. It is not just a viewpoint, doctrine, or belief; it also manifests itself in action.

WHAT IS RELIGION?

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, stated that religion is “the acceptance of all our responsibilities as divine precepts.”

Religion is described by American sociologist Milton Yinger as “a system of ideas and practises through which a community of people wrestles with the fundamental issues of human life.”

Religion and “religious topics” are not defined in the constitution. The Supreme Court will therefore have to decide what these terms entail in a legal sense.

• A.S. NARAYAN V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AIR 1996 SC 1765

In this instance, Justice Hansaria noted that “our constitution architects had employed the word “religion” in these two articles” (Articles 25 and 26) in the sense conveyed by the word “dharma” He went on to say that “religion is enriched by visionary methodology and theology, whereas dharma blossoms in the world of direct experience. Dharma improves the beauty of spirituality, while religion helps shape a culture’s evolving phases. Religion could motivate someone to construct a flimsy, mortal temple for God, but dharma aids in realising the eternal temple within.

• THE NATIONAL ANTHEM CASE.

Kerala State v. Bijoe Emmanuel, (popularly knowns as the national anthem case). The circumstances of this case involved three kids who belonged to a sect (Jehovah’s Witnesses) and who solely worshipped Jehovah (the creator), refusing to perform the national anthem “Jana Gana Mana.” These said that young people should not sing the national anthem because it violates the precepts of their religious beliefs. Because of their sincere conviction, these kids respectfully stood up each day during the playing of the national anthem in silence but chose not to sing. A Commission was established to investigate the situation. According to the Commission’s findings, these kids were “law-abiding” and did not act disrespectfully. However, on the Dy. Inspector of Schools’ orders, the headmistress expelled the students. The children were kicked out of school by the headmistress for refusing to sing the national anthem, and the Supreme Court ruled that this action violated their right to freedom of religion. A violation of the fundamental rights protected by Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25(1) has occurred. The court further ruled that no legislation requires or obligates anyone to sing the national anthem, and it is likewise not disrespectful for someone to stand respectfully without participating in the singing.

In a different Supreme Court case, Union of India v. Shyam Narayan Chouksey, Everybody must honour the national anthem, according to the Supreme Court petition that made this claim. The National Anthem of India must always be respected whenever it is played or sung on designated occasions, according to the Supreme Court, with the exception of people with disabilities. It further stated that playing the national anthem in movie theatres is optional and not required. 

Every person has a responsibility to honour our national anthem, according to Article 51A. It declares that every Indian citizen has a responsibility to respect the country’s ideals, institutions, national flag, national anthem, etc

• TELECAST OF SERIAL: RAMESH V. UNION OF INDIA, (1988) 1 SCC 668

The case’s facts were as follows: Based on a book, the television series “Tamas” has already shown four episodes that depict the tension, bloodshed, and looting that occurred during the sectarian clashes between Hindu-Muslims and Sikh-Muslims. A writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution in order to obtain a writ of prohibition or other suitable writ or order prohibiting further screenings of the serial “Tamas,” upholding the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25, and determining that the screening of Tamas violated Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act of 1952.

In rejecting the petition, the court stated that there were no violations of Articles 21 and 25 and that the respondent had not behaved unlawfully. The author makes an effort to highlight our nation’s historical history and to underline the desire of the populace to live in peace and transcend religious differences. Additionally, it was claimed that viewers of the serial are unlikely to be affected by the violence depicted in it since, when watched in its whole, it conveys a sense of harmony and coexistence.

• APPOINTMENT OF NON-BRAHMINS AS PUJARI: N. ADITYA V. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

In this case, the question was whether the constitution was violated by a non-Malayala Brahmin being appointed as the “Santhikaran” (Priest or Pujari) of the KongorpillyNeerikode Siva Temple in Kerala.

The court ruled that a person can be designated as a “Santhi karan” regardless of caste as long as he or she is knowledgeable, suitably qualified, and taught to conduct the puja in an appropriate manner for the worship of the deity. In this instance, it was also noted that there is no compulsory manner of worship because the temple is not a particular religion.

• BHURI V. STATE OF J. & K., AIR 1997 SC 1711

The Jammu and Kashmir Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988, which removed the privilege to perform Pooja, was in question in this lawsuit over its constitutionality. The Board established by the Act was given control over the administration, governance, and management of the shrine fund (Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board). The Supreme Court supported the Act’s constitutionality and noted that the right to pooja is a customary right that the state can remove by passing legislation. Although subject to some restrictions, the rights under Article 26 are not unrestricted.

ACQUISITION OF PLACE OF WORSHIP BY STATE

In the case of M. Ismail Faruqi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that the mosque is not a fundamental component of Islam. Muslims may offer namaz (prayer) anywhere, including in public, and it is not required to do so solely in a mosque.

The Supreme Court ruled in M Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das that the State has the right to purchase the property under its sovereign or prerogative authority. Places of worship like mosques, churches, and temples can also be acquired by the state, although doing so does not necessarily violate Articles 25 and 26. The acquisition of places of worship, however, that are important and necessary for a religion, or if their extinction would violate their (those who adhere to that religion’s) freedom to exercise their faith, is not permitted.

SHIFTING OF PROPERTY CONNECTED WITH RELIGION

Shias and Sunnis disagreed over the performance of religious ceremonies by the Shias on a specific plot of land in mohalla Doshipura in Varanasi, which led to the case Gulam Abbas v. State of UP. The Supreme Court established a 7-person committee with Divisional Commission as its chairman, three members from the Shia sect, and three members from the Sunni sect in order to prevent conflicts between these communities and find a long-lasting solution to this issue.As a violation of their fundamental right to freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26, the Sunni sect objected to these recommendations. These arguments were dismissed by the court.

The Supreme Court ruled that even though shifting graves is against Muslim personal law, the fundamental right protected by Articles 25 and 26 is not absolute and is subject to public order. If the court determines that shifting graves is in the public’s best interest, the parties’ consent is irrelevant.

TRIPLE TALAQ: SHAYARA BANO V. UNION OF INDIA

Triple talaq, also known as talaq-e-biddat, is a type of divorce in which a Muslim man can formally sever his wife’s marriage by using the words “talaqtalaqtalaq.” The contentious Triple Talaq case was heard by a five-judge Supreme Court panel. In this case, the key question was whether the Muslim custom of triple talaq (Talaq-e-biddat) was a matter of faith and whether it was part of their personal law. The court decided that the Talaq-e-biddat custom is against the law and unlawful by a 3:2 margin. The court further decided that until a law is passed specifically prohibiting triple talaq, an injunction will continue to prevent Muslim men from doing it.

To address this issue, the government created the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017. After then, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance, 2018 was adopted. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 entered into force on July 31st, 2019 with the objective “to protect the rights of the married Muslim women and prohibit the Muslim male from divorcing the wife by pronouncing talaq,” as the 2018 ordinance was about to expire. The government created a new bill in 2019, and an ordinance was passed for the same in 2019, which was approved by the President.

NOISE POLLUTION IN THE NAME OF RELIGION

In Church of God (Full Gospel) v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association, the Supreme Court ruled that no religion says that praying should be done while using voice amplifiers or drums, as this disrupts the peace and quiet of others. If such a practise exists, it should be carried out without violating anyone else’s rights or their right to work uninterrupted.

There are limitations on the use of microphones before 7 am as a result of the Maulana Mufti v. State of West Bengal case. The Calcutta High Court ruled that the azan is an essential and important component of religion, but that using microphones is not. The citizens’ basic human and constitutional right to rest and leisure is violated.

RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION

In the In re Noise Pollution case, the Supreme Court issued the following guidelines that must be followed to prevent noise pollution committed in the name of a religion:

• Fireworks: From 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., all sound-emitting fireworks are prohibited.
• Loudspeakers: Between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., all sound amplifier use is prohibited, with the exception of public emergencies.
• Generally speaking: Loudspeakers and other sound amplifiers or equipment that produce noise above the allowable limit shall be subject to seizure and confiscation by the State.

FREEDOM TO MANAGE RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS (ART. 26)

Every religious denomination or branch of a certain religious denomination is granted the following rights under Article 26 (subject to public order, morality, and health):

• establishing and sustaining institutions for religious and charitable reasons; 
• managing its religious affairs; owning and obtaining property (movable and immovable);
• taking care of the property in compliance with the law.
• RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION

In the constitution, the term “religious denomination” is not specified. In the case of Shri LaxmindraThirtha Swamiar of Shri Shirur Mutt v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious endowment Madras, the Supreme Court began to take the phrase “denomination” into consideration. The Oxford dictionary was used to determine the definition of “Denomination” in this context, which is “A group of people grouped under the same name, a religious sect or body having a shared faith and organization characterized by a distinctive name.”

• BRAMCHARI SIDHESHWAR BHAI V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

In this instance, The Ram Krishna Mission sought to identify itself as a non-Hindu minority, with its members to be treated as Hindus in terms of marriage and inheritance but to be acknowledged as non-Hindus in terms of religion. This would undoubtedly imply that they receive the same legal status as Hindus as opposed to religious non-Hindus, much like Sikhs and Buddhists. The Supreme Court responded by ruling that Ram Krishna adherents cannot assert that they are a minority within the Ram Krishna Religion. The Ram Krishna religion is not distinct from or separate from Hinduism. This group is not a religious minority. Therefore, Ram Krishna Mission cannot assert the basic right to construct and manage educational institutions under Article 30(1).

• RIGHT TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN-INSTITUTIONS FOR RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES: AZEEZ BASHA V. UNION OF INDIA

Between this instance, the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, underwent certain changes in 1951 and 1965. The petitioner objected to these changes on the grounds that:

• They violate Article 30’s fundamental freedom to establish and oversee educational institutions.
• There was a violation of the Muslim minority’s rights under Articles 25, 26, and 29.

According to the Supreme Court, there was nothing that could have stopped Muslim minorities from founding institutions before 1920. The Aligarh Muslim Institution was founded in accordance with the law (Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920), hence it is impossible to say that the university was founded by the Muslim Community because it was formed by the national law, not by the Muslim minority.

• RIGHT TO MANAGE ITS OWN AFFAIRS IN THE ‘MATTERS OF RELIGION’

Religious activities, rituals, observances, ceremonies, modes and manners of worship, etc., which are recognised as fundamental and integral components of the religion, are included in the category of religion. For instance, it was determined in the case of Acharaj Singh v. State of Bihar that Bhog served to the deity should be considered a component of that religion if it is a well-established practise of that religious institution.

PREVENTION OF EXCOMMUNICATION

Excommunication is the act of excluding or expelling someone from a community or group they were a part of.

• STATE OF BOMBAY V. SAIFUDDINSAHEB, AIR 1962 SC 853.

In this instance, the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949, was passed by the State of Bombay. This Act’s Section 3 forbade the excommunication of any community’s members. The Act was challenged by the petitioner (religious leader of the Dawoodi-Bohra Community) on the grounds that it infringed upon their fundamental rights, which are protected by Articles 25 and 26.

The Court noted that the head’s excommunication authority constituted the vital business of the society and that the Act blatantly contravened the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 25(1) of the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court, the Act was invalid because it violated Articles 25 and 26.

TAKING OVER MANAGEMENT OF SECULAR ACTIVITIES OF THE TEMPLE: BIRA KISHORE DEV V. STATE OF ORISSA, AIR 1964 SC 1501

In this case, the Shri Jagannath Temple Act of 1954’s legality was contested on the grounds that it was discriminatory in nature and infringed upon Article 26(d) of the Constitution. The petitioner (Raja of Puri) argued that the temple was his personal property and that he had exclusive control over its supervision and maintenance. The Act gave the Committee sole control of the temple management instead of the appellant, who had previously held that control. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner’s fundamental right to freedom of religion had not been violated and that the Act primarily addressed the secular management of the school.

BREAKING OF COCONUTS AND PERFORMING POOJA, CHANTING MANTRAS AND SUTRAS IN STATE FUNCTIONS: ATHEIST SOCIETY OF INDIA V. GOVERNMENT OF A.P., AIR 1992 AP 310

In this case, the petitioner (Atheist Society of India) requested the issuance of a writ of mandamus to instruct the Andhra Pradesh government to instruct all relevant departments to forbid the performance of religious rituals at official functions, such as breaking coconuts and chanting mantras, on the grounds that doing so violates the constitution’s secular policy. The court denied the petitioner’s pleas on the grounds that they violated their right to exercise their religion and, if approved, would go against the fundamental tenet of our Constitution’s secularism. The right to freedom of thought, beliefs, and worship would be taken away as a result.

RIGHT TO ADMINISTER PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DENOMINATION

A religious group is allowed to manage its own property, but only in line with the law, according to Article 26(d). In Durgah Committee Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali, the Supreme Court noted that if a religious organisation never had the authority to manage property or if it had that authority but lost it, the organization’s right could not be created under Article 26 and could not, therefore, be invoked.

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. SajjanlalPanjawat, the Supreme Court made the observation that while the state may have the authority to oversee or regulate trust properties, it is not permitted by law to revoke that authority and transfer it to another body that is not even a member of the trust’s denomination. A violation of Article 26(d) of the Constitution would unquestionably result from this.

LIMITATION OF THE RIGHT

Article 26’s freedom to practise one’s religion is not unrestricted and absolute; it is subject to some restrictions. A religious practise cannot claim the protection of the state if it violates any aspect of public morals, health, or order.

FREEDOM FROM TAXES FOR PROMOTION OF ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION (ART. 27) 

According to Article 27 of the Constitution, no one may be forced to pay taxes that are used to cover the expenses of advancing or preserving any religion or any group.

The Madras legislature passed the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951, and payments were charged pursuant to the Act, as was contested by Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt. The petitioner argued that because the imposed contributions are taxes and not fees, the state of Madras is ineligible to implement such a clause. Although the imposed contribution was a tax, the Supreme Court ruled that its purpose was for the proper administration of the religious institution.

PROHIBITION OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN THE STATE-AIDED INSTITUTIONS (ART. 28)

What Article 28 forbids:

• giving religious instruction at any educational facility maintained entirely with state money.
• The aforementioned shall not apply to educational institutions managed by states but founded under an endowment or trust that mandates the delivery of religious instruction in such institutions.
• It is not a requirement for anyone attending a state-recognized or -funded educational institution to participate in religious teaching or to attend any workshops held on the campus of that school.

TEACHING OF GURU-NANAK: D.A.V. COLLEGE V. STATE OF PUNJAB, (1971) 2 SCC 368

In this case, it was questioned whether Section 4 of the Guru Nanak University (Amritsar) Act, 1969, which mandated that the state establish provisions for the study of Guru Nanak Devji’s life and teachings, violated Article 28 of the Constitution. The argument that Section 4 violates Article 28 emerged because Guru Nanak University is entirely supported by public funding. The court rejected this, stating that Section 4 allows for the scholarly study of Guru Nanak’s life and teachings, and that this cannot be regarded as religious instruction.

EDUCATION FOR VALUE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON ALL RELIGIONS: ARUNA ROY V. UNION OF INDIA, (2002) 7 SCC 368

The National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE), which was published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training, was allegedly in violation of the constitution, according to the petitioner who filed the PIL in this case under Article 32. Additionally, it was said that it was anti-secular and that the Central Advisory Board of Education had not been consulted, hence it should be rejected. The NCFSE offered instruction in core human values, social justice, nonviolence, self-discipline, compassion, etc. According to the court, there is no infringement of Article 28 and there is no ban on studying religious philosophy in order to live a life based on moral principles in a society.

CONCLUSION

India has the widest range of religions of any nation. Every citizen has the freedom to select, practice, spread, and even change their religion because this nation is secular and does not have a state-sponsored religion. These rights are not unrestricted, though; rather, there are some limitations imposed by the constitution. No one is allowed to act in a way that violates government regulations, causes unrest among Indian citizens, or fosters intolerance.

REFERENCE 

[1]http://www.iloveindia.com/constitution-of-india/right-to-religion.html

[2]http://www.importantindia.com/270/article-on-unity-in-diversity-in-india/

[3] ww.importantindia.com/2025/right-to-freedom-of-religion-in-indian-constitution/

[4] http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Freedom.of.Speech/International/india.secularism.html

[5] Constitutional Law Of India- Dr J. N Pandey

[6] Equivalent citations: (1946) 48 BOMLR , AIR 1947 Bom 272

[7]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/733037/.CitationAIR 1995 SC 1531

[8]http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/why-religious-freedom

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

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 to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening