4. Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs — Article 26

This is the 4th post in Constitutional Law-I, Unit 4 — the previous post covered Article 25's protection of an individual's freedom of conscience and right to profess, practise, and propagate religion. This post covers Article 26, which protects a different right-holder altogether — religious denominations themselves — and their right to manage their own religious affairs, establish institutions, and own and administer property.

The Problem This Topic Solves

Article 25 protects what an individual believes and how an individual practises religion. But religion in India is rarely practised in isolation — it is organised through denominations, sects, monastic orders, and communities, each with its own internal doctrines, hierarchy, institutions, and property. If the Constitution protected only individual belief and left these collective religious bodies with no independent right to run their own internal affairs, the State could still control religion indirectly — by dictating who a denomination could excommunicate, how its temples or churches should be governed, or how its trusts should be administered — even while formally respecting each member's personal Article 25 rights. Article 26 closes this gap by giving religious denominations, as collective entities, their own distinct set of rights.

What Article 26 Guarantees

Article 26 provides: "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 matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law." Note the crucial difference from Article 25: this right belongs to a "religious denomination or any section thereof" — not to individual citizens — and, unlike Article 25, it is not expressly subjected to "the other provisions of this Part" (though it is still subject to public order, morality, and health).

Who Counts as a "Religious Denomination"?

Since Article 26's rights belong specifically to a "religious denomination", courts have had to define what qualifies as one. The test, first articulated in the Shirur Mutt case and consistently applied since, requires three elements: (i) a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being; (ii) a common organisation; and (iii) a designation by a distinctive name. A body that merely shares a broad cultural or philosophical outlook, without these three elements — especially without genuinely being organised around a religious system of belief — will not qualify as a religious denomination, however spiritually or ethically oriented its activities may be.

S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983)

Article 26(a) — Establishing and Maintaining Institutions

Once a body qualifies as a religious denomination, Article 26(a) guarantees it the right to establish and maintain its own institutions for religious and charitable purposes — temples, mutts, churches, dargahs, gurdwaras, schools run for religious/charitable ends, and similar bodies. This is a right to set up and run such institutions free of undue State interference in their core religious character, though (as seen in Post 3's discussion of Article 25(2)(a)) the secular, administrative aspects of running such institutions can still be regulated by the State.

Article 26(b) — Managing Its Own Affairs in Matters of Religion

Article 26(b) is often the most litigated part of this Article: it guarantees a religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs "in matters of religion" — meaning genuinely religious matters, such as its rituals, ceremonies, modes of worship, and internal religious discipline, cannot be dictated by the State. This includes, in appropriate cases, the denomination's power to discipline its own members on religious grounds, including through excommunication, where that power is itself recognised as a matter of religion within that community's own belief system.

Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962)

Articles 26(c) and (d) — Owning and Administering Property

Article 26(c) guarantees a religious denomination the right to own and acquire movable and immovable property, and Article 26(d) guarantees it the right to administer such property — but Article 26(d) is expressly made subject to "law", meaning the State retains the power to regulate how such property is administered (accounts, audits, trustee appointments, and similar secular administrative matters), exactly as discussed for Article 25(2)(a) in the previous post. The denomination's ownership of property is protected as a matter of right; the manner of administering it can be regulated by ordinary law. In Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954), the Supreme Court confirmed this same line: the State can regulate the secular administration of religious trust property, but cannot interfere in matters that are genuinely religious.

• Article 26 protects religious denominations (or sections thereof), not individuals — a distinct right-holder from Article 25
• A "religious denomination" requires: a system of religious belief regarded as conducive to spiritual well-being, a common organisation, and a distinctive name — a body lacking a genuinely religious character will not qualify (S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, 1983)
• Article 26(a): right to establish and maintain religious/charitable institutions. Article 26(b): right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. Article 26(c): right to own/acquire property. Article 26(d): right to administer that property, subject to law
• A denomination's internal disciplinary power exercised on genuinely religious grounds (such as excommunication, where recognised as religiously significant within that community) falls within Article 26(b) and cannot be entirely nullified by ordinary legislation (Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, 1962)

• Article 26, like Article 25, is subject to public order, morality, and health — a denomination's internal practice can still be restricted on these grounds even if it is genuinely religious in character
• The three-part "religious denomination" test was first developed in the Shirur Mutt case (covered in Post 3) and has been consistently applied since, including in S.P. Mittal — it is worth remembering that Shirur Mutt is foundational to both Article 25's essential-practices doctrine and Article 26's denomination test
• The Sardar Syedna Saifuddin judgment on excommunication remains constitutionally significant even today, and a larger Bench of the Supreme Court has, in more recent proceedings, been asked to revisit whether the practice of excommunication should still be tested purely on Article 26(b) grounds or also against constitutional morality and individual dignity — a debate that continues beyond the scope of this unit

Looking Ahead — Article 27

Having covered the individual's right to religion (Article 25) and the denomination's right to manage its own religious affairs (Article 26), the next post turns to a narrower, specific protection: Article 27, which prevents a person from being compelled to pay taxes for the promotion of any particular religion.

A Practical Example

Suppose a State enacts a law requiring every religious trust, regardless of denomination, to have its accounts audited annually by a government-appointed auditor, and separately requires that any decision by a religious head to expel or excommunicate a member must first be approved by a government tribunal before it takes legal effect. Applying Articles 26(c) and (d), the audit requirement is a valid regulation of property administration. But following Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb, the second requirement — subjecting a genuinely religious disciplinary decision to prior government approval — would likely be struck down as an unconstitutional interference with the denomination's Article 26(b) right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, since it does not merely regulate secular administration but inserts the State directly into a religious decision.

Quick Revision Points

• Article 26: rights belong to a "religious denomination or any section thereof", not to individuals — a collective right, distinct from Article 25's individual right
• Religious denomination test (from Shirur Mutt, applied in S.P. Mittal, 1983): system of religious belief + common organisation + distinctive name
• Article 26(a)–(d): establish/maintain institutions; manage own affairs in matters of religion; own/acquire property; administer property subject to law
• Genuinely religious disciplinary powers (e.g., excommunication recognised as religiously significant) are protected under Article 26(b) and cannot simply be nullified by statute (Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, 1962)
• Article 26 is subject to public order, morality, and health, like Article 25