This Article is written by Md. Arif Imam & this article discuss the concept of Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)

Introduction:

The Right to Freedom of Religion, encapsulated within the provisions of Articles 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution, stands as a foundational pillar within India’s democratic ethos. Its significance extends far beyond legal statutes; it embodies the collective commitment of the Indian nation towards fostering a society that reveres secularism, celebrates pluralism, and champions religious tolerance.

At its core, this constitutional right represents more than a mere legal safeguard; it serves as a testament to the inclusive spirit that underpins India’s social fabric. In a nation marked by staggering diversity—linguistic, cultural, and religious—Article 25 to 28 crystallize the foundational principles that bind together the myriad threads of Indian identity.

Article 25, the vanguard of religious freedom, stands as a beacon of individual liberty, affirming every citizen’s inherent right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their faith. In its embrace, individuals find sanctuary to express the depths of their beliefs, to partake in rituals that resonate with their souls, and to share the richness of their spiritual heritage with the world.

Article 26, in recognizing the autonomy of religious denominations, elevates the sanctity of religious institutions, granting them the prerogative to manage their internal affairs without external interference. It acknowledges the sacred trust between communities and their religious institutions, affirming their right to safeguard and transmit their traditions across generations.

Article 27, a bastion of equality, ensures that the burdens of religious observance do not fall disproportionately upon any individual or community. By prohibiting the state from levying taxes for the promotion of any particular religion, it upholds the principle of impartiality, fostering an environment where all faiths stand on equal footing before the law.

Article 28, guarding the sanctity of education, enshrines the right of students to pursue knowledge free from the shadow of religious indoctrination. In its sanctuary, young minds are empowered to explore the vast expanse of human thought, liberated from the constraints of dogma and bias.

Together, these articles form the bedrock upon which India’s pluralistic society thrives—a society where diversity is celebrated as a source of strength, where dialogue and understanding serve as bridges between communities, and where the pursuit of truth is guided by the light of reason and respect.

Article 25: Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice, and Propagation of Religion

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion^[1]. People can freely follow, practice, and promote their religion, but there are limits to ensure public order, morality, and health aren’t compromised.

It separates religious practices from secular activities of religious institutions. The government can regulate non-religious matters like social and economic activities, but religious groups can manage their own religious affairs and institutions as long as they don’t break laws or disturb public order.^[2]

Article 25 stands as a beacon of religious freedom, heralding the right of every individual to embrace, practice, and disseminate their faith without hindrance. It represents a fundamental acknowledgment of the diverse spiritual tapestry that adorns the Indian landscape, fostering an environment where religious pluralism flourishes and individual autonomy is revered.

In its essence, Article 25 not only safeguards the inner sanctum of conscience but also empowers individuals to outwardly express their beliefs through the rich tapestry of rituals, ceremonies, and observances that define their faith. This expansive interpretation of religious liberty serves as a testament to India’s commitment to inclusivity, embracing the myriad hues of spirituality that colour its social fabric.

Central to the ethos of Article 25 is the recognition of the right to propagate religion—a cardinal principle that affirms the universal impulse to share one’s faith with others. This provision acknowledges the innate human desire to engage in dialogue, to bridge the divides of culture and creed through the exchange of ideas and beliefs. It underscores the inherent dignity of every individual to bear witness to their faith, free from the shackles of state intervention or coercion.

Yet, within the expansive canvas of religious freedom, Article 25 also delineates the contours of responsibility and restraint. It acknowledges that while the right to propagate religion is sacrosanct, it must be exercised with due regard for the broader imperatives of public order, morality, and health. This delicate balance ensures that religious practices remain harmonious with the rights of others, fostering a society where diversity is celebrated and communal harmony prevails.

In its jurisprudential evolution, Article 25 has served as a bulwark against the encroachments of orthodoxy and intolerance, reaffirming the principle that religious freedom is not a privilege to be bestowed by the state but an inalienable right inherent to every individual. Through landmark judgments and legal precedents, the Indian judiciary has underscored the paramount importance of religious liberty, safeguarding it as a cornerstone of democratic governance.

As India continues its journey towards a more perfect union, Article 25 remains a lodestar guiding the nation’s aspirations for a society founded upon the principles of equality, fraternity, and justice. It stands as a testament to India’s enduring commitment to pluralism, serving as a beacon of hope for all who seek solace and sanctuary in the embrace of their faith.

Case laws of article 25

There are some important court cases that helped explain what Article 25 really means. One of them is the Shirur Mutt Case^[3] from 1954. In this case, the court said that religious freedom isn’t just about believing in something; it’s also about doing rituals and practices that are important to your religion. This decision made it clear that people have the right to follow their religious customs without interference.

Another important case is the Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay^[4] from 1962. Here, the court said that religious groups should be able to manage their own affairs without the government telling them what to do. This means that religious communities have the right to run their own institutions and make decisions about their beliefs without outside interference.

Then there’s the Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali ^[5]case from 1961. In this one, the court said that the government shouldn’t interfere with how religious institutions are managed unless there’s a really good reason. This decision helped protect the independence of religious organizations.

There’s also the Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay ^[6]case from 1954, where the court said that people have the right to share their religion with others. This means that individuals can talk about their beliefs and try to convince others to join their religion, as long as they’re not causing any big problems.

All these court cases have helped define and protect the right to religious freedom in India. They’ve made it clear that people can practice their religion freely, share it with others, and run their own religious organizations without interference from the government. These decisions have been important in making sure that India remains a place where people of all faiths can live together peacefully.

Article 26: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution is a significant provision that upholds the autonomy of religious denominations in managing their internal affairs. This recognition is crucial as it acknowledges the diverse landscape of religious institutions within India and affirms their right to self-governance without external interference.

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution grants the freedom to manage religious affairs while considering public order, morality, and health. Under Article 26(a), religious groups have the right to set up and run institutions for religious and charitable purposes. The establishment and maintenance of such institutions are linked, meaning a group must establish an institution before gaining the right to maintain and administer it.^[7]

The essence of Article 26 lies in its acknowledgment of the distinct character of religious communities and their inherent right to shape their religious and administrative frameworks according to their beliefs and traditions. This provision serves as a safeguard, ensuring that religious institutions can establish their own rules, customs, and practices in alignment with the tenets of their faith.

Case Laws

One landmark case that exemplifies the importance of Article 26 is the Sardar Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962)^[8]. In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the autonomy of religious denominations in managing their internal affairs, reinforcing the principle that religious communities should be free from undue interference by the state. The judgment underscored the significance of Article 26 in preserving the independence and integrity of religious institutions.

Another notable case is Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958)^[9], where the Supreme Court upheld the autonomy of religious institutions in matters of administration and management. The court reaffirmed that religious denominations have the right to regulate their own affairs without external interference, further solidifying the protections afforded by Article 26.

Furthermore, the Shirur Mutt Case (1954)^[10] provided critical insights into the scope of religious autonomy under Article 26. The judgment elucidated that religious denominations have the freedom to manage their own affairs, including matters of governance, property, and administration, without interference from external authorities.

In essence, Article 26 serves as a bulwark against encroachments on religious autonomy, ensuring that religious institutions can preserve their identity and traditions free from external dictates. Through landmark judgments and legal precedents, the judiciary has reaffirmed the pivotal role of Article 26 in upholding the pluralistic ethos of Indian society and safeguarding the diverse religious landscape of the nation.

Article 27: Freedom from Payment of Taxes for Promotion of any Particular Religion

Article 27 of the Indian Constitution safeguards individuals from obligatory contributions through taxes for the promotion or upkeep of any particular religion or religious group. It emphasizes religious neutrality, prohibiting the utilization of public funds to advance specific religious beliefs or institutions. The core objective of Article 27 is to uphold a secular state where the government maintains impartiality towards all religions, refraining from favoritism or endorsement of any particular faith using public finances. Its purpose is to ensure that taxpayer funds remain unutilized for endorsing specific religious agendas, thereby safeguarding religious freedom and equality among citizens.^[11]

Article 27 of the Indian Constitution stands as a safeguard against the misuse of public funds for the promotion or maintenance of any specific religion. This provision serves as a cornerstone in upholding the principle of religious neutrality within the state.

The essence of Article 27 lies in its prohibition of the levying of taxes for the advancement of any particular religious belief or practice. By enacting this provision, the Constitution ensures that taxpayer money remains free from appropriation for sectarian purposes, thereby fostering an environment of impartiality and equality.

The significance of Article 27 is underscored by its role in preventing the state from exhibiting favouritism towards any specific religious community. This safeguard ensures that public resources are allocated fairly and equitably, without undue preference or bias towards any religious denomination.

Case Laws

One landmark case that exemplifies the importance of Article 27 is the The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954)^[12]. In this case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of secularism enshrined in Article 27, emphasizing that public funds cannot be utilized for the promotion or maintenance of religious activities or institutions.

Furthermore, the Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002)^[13] case highlighted the imperative of upholding Article 27 in ensuring the secular character of the Indian state. The judgment emphasized the need to prevent the diversion of public funds towards religious purposes, thus upholding the constitutional mandate of religious neutrality.

In essence, Article 27 serves as a bulwark against the misuse of public resources for sectarian ends, reaffirming India’s commitment to secularism and equality before the law. Through landmark judgments and legal precedents, the judiciary has upheld the sanctity of Article 27, ensuring that public funds remain dedicated to the collective welfare of all citizens, irrespective of religious affiliation.

Article 28: Freedom from Religious Instruction in Educational Institutions Funded by the StateTop of Form

Article 28 of the Indian Constitution plays a crucial role in safeguarding individuals’ freedom of conscience within the realm of education. This provision prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions maintained or funded by the state, ensuring that students have the autonomy to pursue their education without undue influence or coercion.^[14]

In privately-funded educational institutions, religious instruction is permitted with the consent of parents or guardians. Students have the right to choose whether to receive religious instruction. They can also attend religious worship or instruction specific to their religion.

The essence of Article 28 lies in its commitment to secular education and the principle of separating religion from state-funded educational institutions. By enshrining this provision, the Constitution recognizes the diverse religious beliefs among students and promotes an inclusive learning environment free from religious bias or indoctrination.

The significance of Article 28 is underscored by its role in upholding the secular character of Indian education. It ensures that educational institutions funded by the state remain neutral spaces, where students are free to explore diverse perspectives and develop critical thinking skills without being subjected to religious proselytization.

Case Laws

One landmark case that exemplifies the importance of Article 28 is the D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab (1971)^[15]. In this case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of secularism enshrined in Article 28, emphasizing that state-funded educational institutions must maintain neutrality in matters of religion and refrain from imparting religious instruction.

In the case of Aruna Roy v. Union of India (AIR 2002)^[16], a PIL was filed under Article 32, contesting the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) as anti-secular. The court ruled that studying religious philosophy for a value-based society does not violate Article 28.

Furthermore, the T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002)^[17] case highlighted the imperative of upholding Article 28 in ensuring the autonomy of educational institutions and preserving the secular fabric of Indian education. The judgment emphasized that state-funded institutions should not promote any particular religious ideology, thereby upholding the constitutional mandate of religious neutrality in education.

Article 28 serves as a bulwark against religious indoctrination and coercion in state-funded educational institutions, reaffirming India’s commitment to secularism and pluralism. Through landmark judgments and legal precedents, the judiciary has upheld the sanctity of Article 28, ensuring that education remains a beacon of enlightenment and tolerance, free from the shackles of religious bias. This provision stands as a testament to India’s unwavering dedication to fostering an inclusive society where individuals are empowered to pursue knowledge freely, irrespective of religious affiliation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Right to Freedom of Religion, as enshrined in Articles 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution, represents a fundamental commitment to secularism, pluralism, and religious tolerance in India. These articles serve as the cornerstone of a society that celebrates diversity and upholds individual autonomy in matters of faith. Article 25 ensures the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion, while Articles 26 to 28 safeguard the autonomy of religious institutions, protect against the misuse of public funds for religious purposes, and uphold secular education respectively. Through landmark cases, the judiciary has reinforced these principles, ensuring that religious freedom remains a foundational aspect of Indian democracy. As India progresses, these articles stand as beacons guiding the nation towards a future founded on equality, fraternity, and justice, where individuals of all faiths can coexist harmoniously, and where the pursuit of truth and understanding is nurtured in an atmosphere of mutual respect and acceptance.

1. References

   https://in.linkedin.com/in/pawan-kumar-87629p55138 ↑

2. Indian Kanoon “Article 25” https://indiankanoon.org/doc/631708/ ↑
3. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954): AIR 1954 SC 282 ↑
4. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962): AIR 1962 SC 853 ↑
5. Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali case (1961): AIR 1961 SC 1402 ↑
6. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954): AIR 1954 Bom 475 ↑
7. Indian Kanoon “Article 26” https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1858991/ ↑
8. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962): AIR 1962 SC 853 ↑
9. Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958): AIR 1958 SC 255 ↑
10. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954): AIR 1954 SC 282 ↑
11. Indian Kanoon “Article 27” https://indiankanoon.org/doc/211413/ ↑
12. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954): AIR 1954 SC 282 ↑
13. Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002): AIR 2002 SC 3176 ↑
14. Indian Kanoon “Article 28” https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1734560/ ↑
15. D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab (1971): AIR 1971 SC 1737 ↑
16. AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 3176 ↑
17. T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002): (2002) 8 SCC 481 ↑