TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
INDIA- as a secular state
2. ARTICLE 25: freedom to profess or practice religion
2.1. Extent of governmental control –
2.1.1. telecast of serial
2.1.2. non Brahmins appointed as pujaris in temple
2.1.3. acquisition of place of worship
2.1.4. noise pollution in the name of religion not allowed-
2.1.5. shifting of property connected with religions
2.1.6. religious freedom- includes cremation grounds
2.2. Restrictions on religion-
2.2.1. religious liberty is subject to public order, morality-
2.2.2. regulation of economic, political, financial and secular activities associated with
religious practices
2.2.3. social welfare and social reform
3. ARTICLE 26: freedom to manage religious affairs
3.1. Right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purpose
3.2. Right to manage matters of religion
3.3. Religious observances at state functions
3.4. Right to administer property owned by denomination
4. ARTICLE 27: Freedom from taxes for promotion of any particular religion
5. ARTICLE 28: Prohibition of religious instruction in state aided institution-
5.1.1. Teaching of guru nanak-
5.1.2. Education for value development based on all religions
6. CONCLUSION
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. INTRODUCTION
INDIA- a secular state:
The word ‘secular’ was added in 42nd mendment, 1976.
It means religious tolerance and equal treatment of all religious groups. In India, it means
respect for all religions and faiths. There being no state religion or any preffered religion as
such, all religious groups enjoy equal freedom and constitutional protection without any
favour or discrimination.

Article 25 to 28 under Indian constitution confers religious freedoms not only to citizens but
to all people staying in India. At the same time, it is guaranteed to not only individuals, but
also to all religious groups in India.

In Bommai1, a nine-judge bench of SC held that

“….religious tolerance and equal treatment of all religious groups and protection of their life
and property and of the places of their worship are an essential part of secularism enshrined
in our constitution….”

Concept of secularism is not merely a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is also a

positive concept of equal treatment of all religions.

Santosh Kumar vs Secy. Ministry of Human Resources department – SC held

introduction of Sanskrit language as a subject in the CBSE is not against secularism as it is th
mother of all Aryan languages. Court directed CBSE to make necessary amendments in the
syllabus within 3 months to make sankrit an elective subject for nurturing our cultural heritage.

2. ARTICLE 25: freedom to profess or practice religion

2.1. EXTENT OF GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL –

National Anthem case2, three children belonging to the Jehovah’s witness of the
Christian community were expelled from school for refusing to sing the national
anthem. They challenged validity of their expulsion on the ground that ir was
violative of their fundamental right under article 25 (a). Kerala High court held it
was their fundamental duty under the constitution to sing the national anthem. It
held that if the pupils did not, it would be a very bad influence on other kids. Later,
SC on appeal, reversed the HC decision and held- no person can be compelled to
sing the national anthem if he has genuine, conscientious religious objection.

1
S R Bommai vs UOI
2
Bijoe Immanuel vs state of kerela (1984) JSCC 615
2.1.1. telecast of serial
Ramesh vs UOI-petitioner filed PIL under article 32 restraining the respondents
from screening of a serial and to enforce petitioners fundamental right under article
25. The serial depicted communal violence. Held, screening not violative of article
25 since respondents had not acted with malice.
2.1.2. non Brahmins appointed as pujaris in temple
N.Aditya vs Travancore Dewaswom Board, SC has held that brahmins do not
have monopoly over performing puja in a temple and said that a non-brahmin can
also be appointed as a pujari he is well trained and well versed with the rituals.

A.S. Narayana vs state of AP, The challenge in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu Etc. vs
State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors was to the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious
Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 which took away the rights of the Hindu
priests (Archakas) to customary offerings given to them after the performance of
rituals (Archakatwam). Markandeya argued that out of more than 37,000 temples in
the state only 25 had an annual income of rupees 2.5 million; most of the village
temples had an annual income of only rupees 5000 and it is futile to bring them
under the purview of the impugned Act. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of
the Act but in view of the above argument also directed the State Government to
consider the exemption of village temples from the operation of the Act. A massive
temple movement started forcing the Government to bring legislation to amend the
Act.
In A. S. Narayan v. State of Andhra Pradesh. it has been held that the word
“religion" used in Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution is personal to the person
having faith and belief in the religion. Essentially religion is a matter of personal
faith and the belief.

In this case the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Andhra Pradesh
Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowment; abolishing hereditary rights of
archaka and other office holders on the ground that it violates his right to freedom of
religion under Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Court held the above stated act is
not violative of article 25,26.

The hereditary right to appointment of priests is not an essential of relign or matter

of religion or religious practice. The right to religion guaranteed under section 25
and 26 is not an absolute or unfettered right but subject to regulation by the state. Of
any activity-economic, financial or secular. The appointment of archaka is a secular
activity which could be regulated by law. The Act regulates only secular part of the
religious institutions or endowments. The Act does not interfere with the
 performance of any religion‘s worship or ceremony. Archakas are employees of
temple.
2.1.3. acquisition of place of worship
Ismail Faruqui vs UOI,
The right to profess, practise and propagate religion does not extend to the right of
worship at any or every place of worship so that any hindrance to worship at a
particular place per se will infringe religious freedom.
SC held state by exercise of its sovereign power acquire places of worship if it is
necessary for maintenance of law and order. And this acquisition does not violate
article 25, 26. Since for religious practice can be carried out anywhere making place
of worship not so essential.

2.1.4. Right to practice, profess,propagate

Ghulam Kadar Ahmadbhai Menon vs Surat Municipal Corporation
Gujarat HC held right to religion under article 25, 26 does not prohibit state to
acquire any place of worship for public purpose. Public need to acquire place
2.1.5. noise pollution in the name of religion not allowed-
Church of god in India vs K K R M C welfare association
SC held that in name of freedom of religion, no person can be allowed to create
noise pollution or disturb the peace of others. Since custom of religious prayer
through the use of loudspeakers is not an essential element of any religion.
SC held here that an individual’s religious freedom is subject to public ordervhj8,
morality and health.
2.1.6. shifting of property connected with religions
Ghulam Abbas vs State of UP

2.1.7. religious freedom- includes cremation grounds

Worter karamlki vs state of Meghalaya, petitioner possessed burial ground given
by village elders since time immemorial. But, were prevented from using it to bury
their family members. The Court held that denial of such rights and dispossessing
them from cremation ground amounted the abridgement of their fundamental right
to freedom of religion. The practice of cremating the dead bodies of the members
belonging to the Seng ifaith is an integral part of their faith.
Religion is a matter of faith. A religion may only lay a code of the ethical rules for
oits followers to accept, but may also prescribe land observations, ceremonies and
codes of worship, which is regarded as an integral Of that religion. It is the duty of
this Court to enforce and protect religious rights of ' titioners. The Court directed the
Deputy Commissioner to allow the petitioners munity to utilise the said ground as
cremation ground. The entire exercise should be delegated by the Deputy
 Commissioner within one month from the date of receipt of judgment. However, if
the use of cremation ground in the village is found to be Simble and was resulting in
polluting atmosphere the authorites should provide the opportunity to provide
adequate cremation ground.

2.2. RESTRICTIONS ON RELIGION-

2.2.1. religious liberty is subject to public order, morality-
2.2.1.1. Forced conversions not allowed-
Rev Stanislaus vs state of MP

2.2.1.2. Tandava dance in procession by ananda margis-

Acharya Jagadiswaranand Avadhuta vs Commissioner of Police, Calcutta

2.2.1.3. Two children norm for elective post not violative of article 25
Javed vs state of Haryana

2.2.2. regulation of economic, political, financial and secular activities associated

with religious practices
2.2.2.1. forbidding slaughter of cows- Mohd. Hanif Qureshi vs State of Bihar

2.2.2.2. Anti-war propaganda –

Adelaid co. vs commonwealth

2.2.3. social welfare and social reform

2.2.3.1. prohibition of bigamy
state of Bombay vs varasu bapamali
2.2.3.2. training open hindu religious institutions of public character to all hindus
2.2.3.3. right of Sikhs to wear and carry kirpans

3. ARTICLE 26: freedom to manage religious affairs

SP Mittal vs UOI
3.1. Right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purpose-
Azeez basha vs UOI

3.2. Right to manage matters of religion-

3.2.1. Prevention of ex-communication

Saifuddin saheb vs state of Bombay
 Articles 25-30 embody the principles of religious tolerance that has been the
characteristic feature of Indian civilization from the start of history. They serve to
emphasize the secular nature of Indian democracy which the founding fathers
considered should be the very basis of the Constitution –Sardar Suedna Taiiir Saifiiddin
v State of Bombay.3

3.2.2. Talking over management of secular activities of temple

Bira kishore dev vs state of Orissa

3.3. Religious observances at state functions-

Atheist society of india vs government of AP
3.4. Right to dminister property owned by denomination-
Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v State of Bombay., Freedom of conscience connotes a
person’s right to entertain beliefs and doctrines concerning matters which are regarded
by him to be conducive to his spiritual well being .Religious practices or performances
of acts in pursuance of religious beliefs are as much a part of religion as faith or belief in
particular doctrines .A law which takes away the right of administration from a
denomination and vests it in a secular body would infringe upon the Constitution.4

4. ARTICLE 27: Freedom from taxes for promotion of any particular religion-
Sri Jagannath vs State of Odisha

5. ARTICLE 28: Prohibition of religious instruction in state aided institution-

5.1. Teaching of guru nanak-

DAV college, Bhatinda vs state of Punjab
5.2. Education for value development based on all religions
Aruna Roy vs UOI-

6. CONCLUSION:
Policy of non-interference of government with religion is also guaranteed under these articles
,but the court makes sure it does not extend to affect the secular rights of the citizens as a
whole adversely or the state’s power to regulate socio-economic matters.

Proposed Amendments
On two different occasions attempts were made to amend the Constitution with a view to further
strengthening and clarifying its provisions on secularism, but the Bills moved for this purpose
could not be enacted for technical reasons. Among these Bills were:Constitution (Forty-fifth)

3
https://www.legalindia.com/right-to-freedom-of-religion/
4
https://www.legalindia.com/right-to-freedom-of-religion/
Amendment Bill 1978 proposing to define the expression ‘Secular Republic’ as ‘a Republic in
which there is equal respect for all religions’.

a. Constitution (Eightieth Amendment) Bill 1993 seeking to empower Parliament to ban

parties and associations if they promote religious disharmony and disqualify members
who indulge in such misconduct.
b. Constitution (Eightieth Amendment) Bill 1993 seeking to empower Parliament to ban
parties and associations if they promote religious disharmony and disqualify members
who indulge in such misconduct.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY: