(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law-
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I.-The wearing and carrying of kripans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.-In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindu shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
The term 'religion' has not been defined in the Constitution and it is a term which is not susceptible of any precise definition.
Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, MANU/SC/0136/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 282: 1954 SCJ 335: 1954 SCR 1005. The Supreme Court has observed that religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or communities and it is not necessarily theistic. Religion is the belief which binds spiritual nature of men to super-natural being. It includes worship, belief, faith, devotion etc., and extends to rituals. Religious right is the right of a person believing in a particular faith to practice it, preach it and profess it.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0444/1994 : AIR 1994 SC 1918: 1994 AIR SCW 2946: JT 1994 (2) SC 215: MANU/SC/0444/1994 : (1994) 3 SCC 1: 1994 (2) SCR 644. The Supreme Court has held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. The State treats equally all religions and religious denomination. Religion is a matter of individual faith and cannot be mixed with secular activities. A government, which is anti-secular, cannot be said to be government according to the provisions of the Constitution.
Clause (1) of 25 -Article 25(1) guarantees to every person and not merely to the citizens of India, the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. This right is subject in every case to public order, morality, health and other provision of Part III. Freedom of Conscience connotes a person's right to entertain beliefs and doctrines concurring matters which are regarded by him to be conducive to his spiritual well-being. (Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, MANU/SC/0138/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 388: 1954 SCJ 480: 1954 SCR 1055.
Bajoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, MANU/SC/0061/1986 : AIR 1987 SC 748: (1986) 3 SCC 615: 1986 JT 115: 1986 (3) Supreme 344: 1986 (3) SCJ 395. The Supreme Court held that article 25 is an article of faith in the Constitution recognising the principle that real test of true democracy is the ability of even an insignificant minority to find its identity under the country's Constitution.
A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, MANU/SC/0455/1996 : AIR 1996 SC 1765: 1996 AIR SCW 2029: JT 1996 (3) SC 482: MANU/SC/0455/1996 : (1996) 9 SCC 548: (1996) 3 SCR 543. The Court held that the word 'religion' used in articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is personal to the person having faith and belief in the religion and held that an Act was constitutional which regulated only the secular activities connected with religion and not matters which are integral part of religion.
1. Religious liberty subject of public order, morality and health.-
In the name of religion no act can be against public order, morality and health of the public. Thus section 34 of the Police Act prohibits the slaughter of cattle or indecent exposure of one's person in a public place. Right to propagate one's religion does not give right to anyone to forcibly convert any person to one's own religion.
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0056/1977 : AIR 1977 SC 908: 1977 Cr LJ 551: (1977) 1 SCC 677: 1977 UJ (SC) 156: 1977 SCC (Cri) 147: 1977 (1) SCJ 478: (1977) 2 SCR 611. Article 25(1) guarantees freedom of conscience to every citizen and not merely to the followers of one particular religion. This article postulates that there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one's own religion because if a person purposely undertakes the conversion of another person to his religion, that would impinge on the freedom of conscience guaranteed to all citizens of the country alike.
Javed v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 3047: 2003 AIR SCW 3892: JT 2003 (6) SC 183: MANU/SC/0523/2003 : (2003) 8 SCC 369: (2003) 5 SCALE 602: 2003 (5) Supreme 371. The Supreme Court has held that section 175(1)(q) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which disqualified person having more than two children from contesting election for the post of Sarpanch and Panch in Panchayat does not violate article 25 of the Constitution.
2. Regulation of economic, financial, political and secular activities associated with religious practices [clause (2)(a)].-
The freedom to practice extends only to those activities which are the essence of religion. It does not cover such activities which do not form the essence of religion.
Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0027/1958 : AIR 1958 SC 731: 1958 SCJ 975: 1959 SCR 629. The court held that the sacrifice of cow on the Bakrid day was not an essential part of the Mohammedan religion and hence could be prohibited by State.
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1: (1983) 1 SCC 51: 1983 (1) SCJ 45: (1983) 1 SCR 729. The Supreme Court held that the memorandum of association of society and repeated uttering of Sri Aurobindo and the mother that the society and Auroville were not religious institutions and other documents make it clear that neither the society nor Auroville constituted a "religious denomination" and the teachings of Sri Aurobindo did not constitute a 'religion'.
Social Welfare and Social reforms (Clause 2(b)).- Under this clause State is empowered to make laws for social welfare and social reforms. This clause declares that where there is conflict between the need of social welfare and reforms and religious practice, religion must yield. Under this clause, the State is empowered to throw open all Hindu religious institutions of a public character, to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right-
(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
(b) to manage its own affairs in matter of religion;
(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
(d) to administer such property in accordance with law.
While article 25 confers the particular rights on all persons, article 26 is confined to religious denomination or any section thereof. Article 26 thus guarantees collective freedom of religion. The term 'religious denomination' in article 26 means a religious sect having a common faith and organization and designated by the distinctive name. There must be common faith of the community based on religion, and the community members must have common religious tenets peculiar to themselves.
Azeez Basha v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0039/1967 : AIR 1968 SC 662: (1968) 1 SCR 833. The Supreme Court held that the Aligarh University was not established by the Muslim Minority and therefore it could not claim the right to maintain it. It was established under a statute passed by the Parliament.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, MANU/SC/0905/2002 : AIR 2003 SC 355: 2002 AIR SCW 4957: JT 2002 (9) SC 1: MANU/SC/0905/2002 : (2002) 8 SCC 481: (2002) 8 SCALE 1: 2002 (8) Supreme 62. "The right to establish and maintain educational institutions may also be sourced to article 26(a), which grants, in positive terms, the right to every religious denomination or any section thereof to establish and maintain for religious and charitable purposes, subject to public order, morality and health.
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, MANU/SC/0072/1962 : AIR 1962 SC 853: 1963 (2) SCJ 519: (1962) Supp 2 SCR 496. The term "matters of religion" used in article 26(b) is synonymous with the term 'religion' in article 25(1). It thus includes not only religious belief but also such religious practices and rites as are regarded to be an essential and integral part of religion.
S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1: (1983) 1 SCC 51: 1983 (1) SCJ 45: (1983) 1 SCR 729. Under clauses (c) and (d) of article 26 a religious denomination has the right to acquire and own property and to administer such property in accordance with law. The right to administer property owned by a religious denomination is a limited right. The right of a religious denomination to manage its property. The former is a fundamental right which cannot be taken away except on grounds mentioned in article 25 while the latter can be regulated by law, i.e., it can be abridged or taken away by a valid law.
No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.
Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa, MANU/SC/0137/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 400: 1954 SCJ 329: 1954 SCR 1046. In this case the validity of Orissa Hindu Religious Endownments Act was challenged. The Act levied an annual contribution on every muth or temple having annual income of more than Rs. 250 for meeting the expenses of the commissioner and his office. The provision was enacted for better administration of religious endowments. The Act was upheld on the ground that the contribution imposed by it was not tax but fee.
(1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution.
(3) No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto.
D.A.V. College, Jullundur v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0039/1971 : AIR 1971 SC 1737: 1971 (Supp) SCR 688: (1971) 2 SCC 269. The Court stated that religious instruction is that which is imparted for inculcating the tenets, the rituals, the observances, ceremonies and modes of worship of a particular sect or denomination.
Aruna Roy v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 3176: 2002 AIR SCW 3670: JT 2002 (7) SC 103: (2002) 7 SCC 368: 2002 (4) SCJ 235: (2002) 6 SCALE 408: 2002 (6) Supreme 437. The Supreme Court has ruled that article 28 does not ban a study of religions. There is no prohibition on study of religious philosophy and culture, particularly for having value-based social life in a society which is degenerating for power, post or property.
© Universal law Publishing Co.