Articles 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution guarantee the Right to Freedom of Religion, allowing individuals to follow, practice, and propagate their beliefs freely. This fundamental right is subject to public order, morality, and health, balancing individual freedoms with societal norms. It extends protection to both citizens and non-citizens, encompassing a broad spectrum of religious practices and beliefs.

Overview of Right to Freedom of Religion: Article 25 and 26

Article 25: Freedom Of Conscience And Free Profession, Practice, And Propagation Of Religion

• Freedom of Conscience and Right to Practice and Propagate Religion: Article 25 establishes the freedom of conscience and the right to practice and propagate the religion to which a person may subscribe a fundamental right.
• Limits of Article 25: The exercise of such right has been made subject to public order, morality, and health and also to the other provisions of part iii of the Indian constitution.

• • Impact on Existing and New Legislation: The principal element of Article 25 does not hinder the enforcement of any current laws, nor does it restrict the state from enacting new legislation aimed at social welfare and reform, or for ensuring access to religious institutions of a public nature to every category and segment of any religion. 

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

• Explanation of Key Terms: The above-given expression describes the following:
  • Freedom of Conscience: It allows an individual the private autonomy to form their personal relationship with a deity or the universe as they see fit.
  • Right to profess: It involves openly expressing and sharing one’s religious convictions and faith.
  • Right to practice: It entails engaging in religious worship, observances, rites, and the expression of religious beliefs and ideas.
  • Right to propagate: It involves sharing and spreading one’s religious doctrines to others, but it does not extend to coercing someone to convert to one’s religion, as such coercion violates the universally guaranteed ‘freedom of conscience‘.
• Scope of Article 25: It is evident that Article 25 encompasses both the doctrinal aspects (beliefs) and the practical components (rituals) of religion. 
• Additionally, these rights are granted to everyone, including both citizens and non-citizens.
• Limits: These freedoms, however, are subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions relating to fundamental rights. 
• Further, the State is permitted to:
  • Regulation of Non-Religious Activities: regulate or restrict any financial, economic, political, or other non-religious activities that are connected to the practice of religion.
  • Measures for Social Welfare and Reform: enact measures aimed at social welfare and reform or ensure that Hindu religious institutions of a public nature are accessible to Hindus of all classes and segments.
  • Article 25 includes two clarifications: 
    • Recognition of Sikh Kirpan Practice: The Sikh practice of bearing kirpans is recognized as an aspect of their religious expression.
    • Inclusive Definition of ‘Hindus’: Within the scope of this context, the term ‘Hindus’ encompasses individuals of Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist faiths.

• Stanislaus vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977): 

• • Right to Propagate Religion: The Supreme Court clarified that Article 25 of the Constitution does not confer the right to convert someone to one’s own religion. 
    • Instead, it grants the right to propagate and disseminate one’s religion by explaining its principles.
  • Fraudulent or Induced Conversions: The apex court asserted that fraudulent or induced conversion not only violates an individual’s right to freedom of conscience but also has implications for public order. 
    • Consequently, the state has the authority to regulate and restrict such practices in order to maintain public order.

Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs

• Article 26 secures freedom to manage religious affairs Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right
• to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
• to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; 
• to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
• to administer such property in accordance with law. 
• Supreme Court verdict on recognition of Religious Denomination: The Supreme Court held that the ‘Ramakrishna Mission’ and ‘Ananda Marga’ are religious denominations within the Hindu religion. 
• It also held that the Aurobindo Society is not a religious denomination.
• Criteria:

• Idea of Secularism in Indian Constitution:

• • Initial Exclusion of ‘Secular’: The initial exclusion of the word ‘Secular’ from the key descriptors of the Indian Constitution may have been an intentional decision due to concerns that the term might be interpreted as having an anti-religious sentiment. 
  • Incorporation of ‘Secular’ into the Preamble: However, this was subsequently addressed by incorporating ‘secular’ into the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976.
  • S.R. Bommai Case, 1994: This addition was solidified by the judiciary’s affirmation in the landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case in 1994, where it was declared that secularism constitutes a core element of the Constitution’s fundamental structure.

• Essential Religious practice:

• • Doctrine of Essential Religious Practices: refers to the legal principle established by the Supreme Court to determine and protect the core rituals and observances integral to a religion. 
    • This doctrine recognizes that while religions may have various practices, certain essential elements form the foundation of the faith. 
    • These are the practices that might take away the spirit and essence of religion if not followed. 
    • Example: Namaz is essential religious practice but namaz at Masjid is a religious practice. For passing any judgment, the Supreme Court determines the essential practice.
  • Origin of the Doctrine: In the Shirur Mutt Case 1954, for the first time the Supreme Court came up with the doctrine of essentiality. 
  • Application of the Doctrine: In the case of M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, popularly known as the Ayodhya Dispute Case, the Supreme Court used the doctrine of essentiality to deliver justice.
  • Purpose and Impact of the Doctrine: The doctrine of essential religious practices provides a legal framework for identifying and preserving the fundamental elements of a religion, contributing to the harmonious adjudication of religious disputes in India.

Rights Of Women Entering Temples 

• Legal and Social Debate on Women’s Temple Entry: The right of women to enter temples has been a subject of legal, social, and often intense public debate in India. 
  • This issue intersects with several constitutional rights, including the right to equality (Article 14), the right to non-discrimination on the basis of sex (Article 15), and the right to freedom of religion (Articles 25-26).
• Sabarimala Temple Case: The Indian judiciary has addressed the issue in several judgments. 
  • A notable case is the Sabarimala Temple case in Kerala. 
  • In 2018, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the practice of barring women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala Temple was unconstitutional. 
  • The court held that this practice violated the rights to equality, non-discrimination, and religious freedom.
• Customs vs. Fundamental Rights: Often, the argument against women’s entry into certain temples is based on long-standing customs and traditions. 
  • However, the Supreme Court has asserted that when customs and traditions conflict with fundamental rights, the latter must prevail.
• Judicial Approach: The courts have been increasingly interpreting religious freedoms in the light of other fundamental rights, advocating for a more progressive and non-discriminatory approach to religious practices.

• Denomination Status and Constitutional Test: The court in Sabarimala case also held that the devotees of lord Ayyappan did not pass the constitutional test to be declared a separate religious identity.
  • Religious denomination and that the temple’s denominational rights to manage its own internal affair were subject to Article 25 (2)(b).
• Striking Down of Section 3(b): The court struck down the Section 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship,1965 and held both in violation of constitution and ultra vires to section 3 and 4 of its parent act.
• Constitutional Morality and Exclusionary Practices: The Sabarimala case was defined under constitutional morality. 
  • Acclaim for the exclusion of women from religious worship even if it be founded in religious text, it subordinates to constitutional values of liberty, dignity and equality. 

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

• • Exclusionary practices are contrary to constitutional morality.

Conclusion

The Right to Freedom of Religion in India upholds individual liberty while accommodating societal needs and legal boundaries. 

• Through landmark judgments, the judiciary has reinforced the balance between personal religious freedoms and constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. 
• This evolving jurisprudence ensures that religious practices align with fundamental rights and public order.

Sign up for the PWOnlyIAS Online Course by Physics Wallah and start your journey to IAS success today!