Right to Freedom of Religion

Legal provision

• Article 25(1): all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. This is subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of Part III.
• Article 25(2): the State may make a law regulating any economic, financial, political or other secular activity linked with religious practice. It may also make a law for social welfare and reform, or for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
• Explanation I: wearing and carrying kirpans is part of the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II: "Hindus" in clause (2)(b) includes persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion.
• Article 26: every religious denomination or any section of it has four rights, subject to public order, morality and health. It may establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes. It may manage its own affairs in matters of religion. It may own and acquire property. It may administer that property in accordance with law.
• Article 27: no person shall be compelled to pay any tax whose proceeds are specifically spent on the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.
• Article 28: clause (1) bars religious instruction in an institution wholly maintained out of State funds. Clause (2) excepts an institution administered by the State but established under an endowment or trust that requires such instruction. Clause (3) bars compelling anyone in a recognised or aided institution to take part in religious instruction or worship without consent, or the guardian's consent for a minor.

Meaning and definition

The Constitution does not define "religion". The Court has read it widely to cover belief and the acts that belong to it. The four Articles together express secularism: the State has no religion of its own and treats all faiths alike. Each Article protects a different holder. Article 25 protects the individual. Article 26 protects a religious denomination. Article 27 protects the taxpayer. Article 28 protects the student.

All four rights are limited. Articles 25 and 26 are subject to public order, morality and health. Article 25 is also subject to the other rights in Part III. Article 26 is not.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: conscience, and the right to profess and practise

Article 25(1) gives every person, citizen or not, freedom of conscience. This is the inner freedom to hold or reject a belief. The Article also protects the right to profess and to practise a religion. Conscience includes the freedom to refuse an act that your genuine belief forbids.

In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, three children who belonged to Jehovah's Witnesses stood respectfully during the National Anthem at school but did not sing it. Their faith did not allow them to join in. The Head Mistress expelled school on 26 July 1985. The Supreme Court held that no law makes anyone sing the Anthem and that standing in respect is proper respect. The expulsion, based on departmental circulars, breached Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25(1). The children were to be re-admitted. The test is whether the belief is genuinely held, not whether the Judge shares it.

Step 2: the right to propagate

"Propagate" means to spread one's religion by explaining its tenets. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a five-Judge Bench upheld the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968 and the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967. Both banned conversion by force, fraud or allurement. The Court held that Article 25(1) gives no right to convert another person. Converting someone would hurt that person's own freedom of conscience. It also held that the laws belong to Entry 1 of the State List, public order, and not to the Union's residuary power in Entry 97.

The freedom of an adult to choose a faith is protected as well. In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), the Court held that an adult's choice of faith and of spouse falls within personal liberty and privacy under Article 21. A court cannot replace that choice with its own view.

Step 3: what the State may regulate under Article 25(2)

Clause (2)(a) lets the State regulate the secular side of religion, such as money and property. Clause (2)(b) lets it pass social-reform laws and open Hindu temples of a public character to all sections of Hindus. In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954), a seven-Judge Bench examined the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, under which a heavily indebted mutt was put under an Executive Officer. The Court held that the State's power covers only secular activity, not practices essential to the religion. It also held that the essential religious practices test looks to the religion's own doctrines. Some provisions of the Act that reached religious matters were struck down.

Step 4: the limits of public order, morality and health

In Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association (2000), residents complained of noise from a Chennai church's drums and loudspeakers. The Court held that no religion prescribes prayer by disturbing the peace of others. The noise rules must be enforced. The Court did not decide the Article 25 and 26 point in detail.

In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), the Sabarimala case, a five-Judge Bench held 4:1 that the rule barring women of ten to fifty years from the temple could not stand. Indu Malhotra, J. dissented. The majority held that devotees of Lord Ayyappa are not a separate denomination and that the bar is not essential. In 2019 the review petitions were kept pending and wider questions on essential religious practices were referred to a larger Bench. A nine-Judge Bench heard the reference for sixteen days in 2026 and reserved its judgment.

Step 5: Article 26 and the denomination

Article 26 belongs to a group, not a person. A religious denomination needs three things: a system of belief that its members regard as good for their spiritual well-being, a common organisation, and a distinctive name. In S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983), a five-Judge Bench held that neither the Sri Aurobindo Society nor the Auroville township was a religious denomination. The Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980 therefore did not breach Articles 25 and 26.

A denomination may manage "its own affairs in matters of religion". In Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962), the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community challenged the Bombay Prevention of Ex-communication Act, 1949. By 4:1, a five-Judge Bench struck the Act down. It held that the Act breached Article 26(b) and was not saved by Article 25(2). Whether this ruling needs a second look has been referred to a larger Bench.

Clauses (c) and (d) let a denomination own property and administer it "in accordance with law". The State can therefore regulate how the property is managed but cannot take the property away.

Step 6: Article 27, no tax for a religion

Article 27 bars only a compulsory tax whose proceeds are specifically spent on one religion or denomination. In Shirur Mutt, the Madras Act made every mutt pay an annual levy to meet the cost of supervising religious trusts. The Court held that the payment was a tax, but Article 27 did not apply. The money went to the proper administration of religious institutions everywhere, not to promote one religion. In Mahant Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa (1954), the Court held that a similar payment under the Orissa Act was a fee, and it also fell outside Article 27.

Step 7: Article 28, religious instruction in schools

Article 28 sorts institutions by their link with the State. A school wholly maintained out of State funds may not give religious instruction. A State-administered school founded under a trust that requires it may. A recognised or aided school may give it, but no student can be forced to attend without consent. A wholly private school with no State link is outside Article 28.

In Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002), a three-Judge Bench considered the National Curriculum Framework for School Education, 2000. It included a study of the basic teachings of all religions for value education. The Court upheld it. It held that studying religious philosophy and culture for a value-based social life is not religious instruction under Article 28. This fits the Fundamental Duty in Article 51A.

Don't confuse: Article 25 and Article 26

Common mistakes

• Saying Article 25 protects only citizens. It protects all persons.
• Saying "propagate" includes a right to convert. Stainislaus held it does not.
• Giving Article 26 to individuals. It belongs to a denomination.
• Saying the State cannot touch religious property. It can regulate administration in accordance with law.
• Saying Article 27 bars every payment by a religious body. It bars only a tax spent on one particular religion.
• Saying Article 28 bans all teaching about religion. Study of religions for values is allowed (Aruna Roy).

Apply it

Leading case laws

• Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954)

  Facts. A heavily indebted mutt was placed under a State-appointed Executive Officer by the Madras Act of 1951.

  Principle. Article 25(2)(a) covers only secular activity. What is essential to a religion is decided by its own doctrines.

  Why it matters. It is the foundation of the essential religious practices test.

• Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986)

  Facts. Three Jehovah's Witness children, expelled for not singing the National Anthem.

  Principle. Standing respectfully is enough. Forcing them to sing breached Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1).

  Why it matters. It protects the freedom to abstain.

• Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)

  Facts. A priest challenged State laws against conversion by force, fraud or allurement.

  Principle. Propagate does not include a right to convert. The laws are valid as public order laws.

  Why it matters. It marks the limit of propagation.

• Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association (2000)

  Facts. Residents complained of noise from a church's drums and loudspeakers.

  Principle. No religion prescribes prayer by disturbing the peace of others.

  Why it matters. It shows public order, morality and health limiting religious practice.

• Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018)

  Facts. An adult woman converted and married a man of her choice. The High Court annulled the marriage.

  Principle. An adult's choice of faith and spouse is protected under Article 21.

  Why it matters. It protects adult choice of faith.

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

  Facts. A challenge to the Auroville (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980.

  Principle. The Society and Auroville were not a religious denomination.

  Why it matters. It shows how the denomination test is applied.

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

  Facts. The Dawoodi Bohra head challenged the Bombay Prevention of Ex-communication Act, 1949.

  Principle. By 4:1, the Act was struck down for breach of Article 26(b).

  Why it matters. It shows a denomination's control over its internal discipline.

• Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002)

  Facts. A challenge to the value-education part of the National Curriculum Framework, 2000.

  Principle. Study of religious philosophy and culture for values is not religious instruction.

  Why it matters. It limits the meaning of Article 28.

How to write this answer in the exam

Key points to remember

• Article 25(1): all persons; conscience, profess, practise, propagate; subject to public order, morality, health and Part III.
• Propagate is not convert (Stainislaus, 1977).
• Shirur Mutt (1954): the State may regulate only secular activity; the religion's doctrines decide what is essential.
• Article 26 belongs to a denomination: belief system, common organisation, distinctive name.
• Article 27 bars a compulsory tax spent on one particular religion.
• Article 28: no instruction in wholly State-funded schools; consent in aided or recognised schools.
• Bijoe Emmanuel (1986): you cannot be forced to sing against your belief.

Quick self-test

Related topics

• Cultural and Educational Rights
• Preamble to Indian Constitution
• Right to Life and Personal Liberty