The Right to Freedom of Religion reflects the essence of Indian secularism, which is not based on strict separation but on equal respect for all religions. The Constitution seeks to create a harmonious balance where individuals are free to follow their faith while ensuring that religion does not interfere with public order, social reform, and constitutional values. This right ensures both individual liberty and collective religious autonomy.
Article 25: Freedom of Conscience and Religion
Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion
Article 25 guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. The freedom of conscience is absolute, as it concerns the inner belief of an individual, whereas the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion is subject to reasonable restrictions such as public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights.
The Article also permits the State to regulate secular aspects associated with religion and to enact laws for social welfare and reform. Thus, practices such as untouchability or exclusion may be reformed even if they are claimed to be religious.
The judiciary has developed the Essential Religious Practices Doctrine, which determines whether a practice is fundamental to a religion and therefore protected. This doctrine has played a crucial role in shaping the scope of Article 25.
In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, the Supreme Court held that religion includes practices regarded as essential by the religion itself, thereby laying down the foundation of the essential practices test. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court clarified that the right to propagate religion does not include the right to convert another person forcibly. Further, in Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, the Court protected the freedom of conscience by allowing students to refrain from singing the national anthem on religious grounds. More recently, in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, the Court emphasized that constitutional morality must prevail over discriminatory religious practices.
Article 26: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs
Article 26 grants religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. It includes the right to establish and maintain institutions, manage religious affairs, own property, and administer such property according to law.
This Article recognizes the collective dimension of religious freedom and ensures that religious groups maintain autonomy in their internal matters. However, this autonomy is limited to religious aspects, and the State retains the power to regulate secular activities.
In Shirur Mutt Case, the Court held that the State cannot interfere in purely religious matters. In S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, the Court elaborated on what constitutes a religious denomination, emphasizing the need for a common faith and organizational structure.
Article 27: Freedom from Religious Taxation
Article 27: Freedom as to payment of taxes for the promotion of any particular religion
Article 27 ensures that no individual can be compelled to pay taxes for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion. This provision reinforces the secular character of the State by preventing financial support to religious activities through taxation.
However, the State may levy taxes for secular purposes even if the proceeds incidentally benefit religious institutions. This was clarified in Prafull Goradia v. Union of India, where the Court upheld such taxation as valid.
Article 28: Religious Instruction in Educational Institutions
Article 28: Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions
Article 28 prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions wholly funded by the State. However, it allows religious instruction in institutions administered by the State but established under a trust that requires such instruction.
It also ensures that no person can be compelled to participate in religious instruction or worship without consent. This provision safeguards individual freedom and prevents religious coercion in educational settings.
In Aruna Roy v. Union of India, the Court clarified that value-based education does not amount to religious instruction.
II. CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS (ARTICLES 29–30)
Introduction
Articles 29 and 30 are designed to preserve the rich cultural and linguistic diversity of India. They provide constitutional protection to minorities, ensuring that their identity, language, and educational institutions are safeguarded against majoritarian dominance.
Article 29: Protection of Interests of Minorities
Article 29 protects the right of any section of citizens to conserve their distinct language, script, or culture. It also prohibits discrimination in admission to educational institutions maintained or aided by the State. This provision plays a crucial role in maintaining India’s pluralistic identity. In State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, the Supreme Court struck down caste-based reservations, leading to the First Constitutional Amendment. In St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi, the Court upheld the right of minority institutions to reserve seats for their community.
Article 30: Right of Minorities to Establish and Administer Educational Institutions
Article 30 grants minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. It also ensures that the State does not discriminate against such institutions while granting aid.
This right is crucial for preserving minority identity and autonomy in education. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive principles regarding minority rights. In P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the State cannot impose reservation policies on private minority institutions. Similarly, in St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat, the Court emphasized the importance of institutional autonomy.
III. RIGHT TO PROPERTY AND SAVING CLAUSES (ARTICLES 31–31C)
Introduction
The Right to Property, once a fundamental right, has undergone significant transformation and now exists as a constitutional legal right under Article 300A. Articles 31A to 31C were introduced to protect socio-economic reforms from judicial challenges.
Article 31A and 31B
Article 31A protects laws related to land reforms and agrarian restructuring from being challenged under Articles 14 and 19. Article 31B, along with the Ninth Schedule, provides immunity to certain laws from judicial review.
However, in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court held that even laws in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
Article 31C
Article 31C protects laws that give effect to Directive Principles of State Policy. This reflects the attempt to balance Fundamental Rights with socio-economic justice.
In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine, ensuring that even constitutional amendments cannot destroy the core principles of the Constitution.
IV. RIGHT TO CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDIES (ARTICLE 32)
Introduction
Article 32 is regarded as the cornerstone of Fundamental Rights, as it provides the mechanism for their enforcement. Without remedies, rights would remain merely theoretical.
Nature and Scope
Article 32 guarantees the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The Court has the power to issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and quo warranto.
Describing its importance, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar famously called it the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.
Judicial Expansion and PIL The scope of Article 32 has been significantly expanded through judicial activism and Public Interest Litigation (PIL), allowing even public-spirited individuals to approach the Court on behalf of others.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the Court expanded the scope of PIL to address issues of bonded labour. Similarly, in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, the Court relaxed the rule of locus standi.
V. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS (ARTICLES 33–35)
Article 33
Article 33 empowers Parliament to restrict or modify Fundamental Rights in their application to armed forces, police forces, and intelligence agencies to ensure discipline and proper functioning.
Article 34
Article 34 provides for the restriction of Fundamental Rights during the operation of martial law in any area.
Article 35
Article 35 grants Parliament the exclusive authority to make laws for the enforcement of certain Fundamental Rights and related matters.
CONCLUSION
The provisions from Articles 25 to 35 form a comprehensive constitutional framework that harmonizes individual freedom with societal interests. They protect religious liberty, preserve cultural diversity, and ensure access to justice. Through dynamic judicial interpretation, these rights have evolved into powerful instruments for safeguarding democracy, pluralism, and constitutional morality in India.
