Question: Constitution of India Provides freedom of

Religion or Secularism to all person. What are the

restrictions which can be imposed by the State on this
freedom? OR
India is a secular state? Do you agree with it.? OR There
is a guarantee of freedom of conscience and right to
profess, practice and propagate the religion under
article  25(1). Comments.  Give its exceptions also.
Answer:  
Introduction:
Right of freedom of religion is contained from Art. 25 to 28 of
constitution of India, these articles are contained in the part III
of the constitution. Art 25(1) gives the conditions for the
freedom of religion. Under Art.25(2) there are certain
restrictions on this freedom of religion.  Art.26 is related with
the management of the religious affairs and the maintenance of
religious institution.  Art.27 says that the income earned by the
way of religious activities shall not be taxable, Art.28 says that
the Govt., shall not give any aid for the religious activities.
These four Articles give the ideas of secularism.  The preamble
of the constitution also says that our constitution is secular.
There is freedom of thought, expression, belief and faith. That
is why India is a secular state. 

DEFINITION OF RELIGION:

On the basis of religious concept, a state may be divided into

three categories.

i) Anti-Religious State: It means where there is no recognition to

any religion in the state. In other words, the persons of that
state cannot follow or adopt any religion.
ii) Religious State: A State, which has its own religion or where
there is recognition of only one religion.  All people are bound
to follow that one religion. For example, Pakistan, and other
Muslim countries.
iii) Secular state: A State, which is neither anti-religious, nor
religious.  It means such a state has not its own religion but it
does not prohibit any person for adopting any religion. Modern
Democratic countries are mostly secular states. For example,
America, England & India etc.
WHAT IS RELIGION: Now question is arises that what is religion?
It is very difficult to define in certain words of term ‘religion’
because it is based upon faith and belief. It is a matter of inner
conscience or spiritual matter. Though in various cases the SC
of India has said that,” Religion is a doctrine of belief. Religion
is related with the manners, living manners of getting peace in
this world, including the manners of talking, eating even types
of dress. So religion is a variety of different things in the life of
a person, which are related with spiritual or inner conscience
matters. 

RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION: Article 25(1) mainly

contains the following two things:
i) Freedom of conscience.
ii) Right to profess, practice and propagate the religion.
Freedom of Conscience:  Every person has the freedom of
conscience.  It means to think according to one’s own will.
Conscience is an internal matter upon which there is no control
of any other person, even a father cannot control his son for
the purpose of religion.  A person is free to adopt any religion
or he is free to adopt no religion. He may be antitheist or anti
God.  But it does not, mean that it is violative of any provision
of the constitution or of any law. He is free to follow any section
or any branch of religion.  
RIGHT TO PROFESS, PRACTICE & PROPAGATE:   Profess means
to accept anything.  A person is free to accept any religion and
to declare it openly. There is no restriction on him for this
purpose. Practice Means to perform the religious activities. I
mean one is free to follow the customs or ceremonies or other
activities of a religion. Propagate means to spread the religion
it means one has the right to expend or spread his religion.  It
means one has the freedom to make others as his followers in
this religion. For this purpose one has the right to express his
thoughts or ideas about his religion but propagation of this
does not mean the conversion of the religion. Conversion is an
interference in the propagation of another religion. In a case,
conversion is allowed. 
1.  Case : National Anthem’s case 1984, in this case the SC held
that it is the freedom of Religion and one cannot compel any
other person for obeying he directions relating with another
religion.”  It is also said that the right to speak also includes
right of not to speak. So this order was held violative of
Art.2(1)being against the right of freedom of religion. Case:
Ramesh v/s Union of India 1988, a PIL was filed, SC rejected
this agreement and held that it does not infringes the right of
freedom of religion under article 25(1), even said that by this
serial the true picture of the partition of India comes in the
knowledge of the public which will be in the benefit of the
public.   
RESTRICTION OVER THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION: -  Freedom of
religion is neither right nor absolute freedom.  Some
restrictions may be imposed on this right in the interest of
public.  The article 25(2) it self-laid down certain restrictions.
Restriction in the interest of public morality and health:-To
maintain law & order is prime duty of the government. The
government may impose certain reasonable restriction on the
religious activities. If they are dangerous to the public. For
example: to arrange route of the religious, procession, even the
force-able conversion is not in the interest of the public. Case:
Gulam Abbas V/s State of UP 1984 : The SC rejected this
argument and held that to decide a dispute between two
sections such acts  petition come under the reasonable
restrictions.
* Recently in election of Maharashtra Chief Minister:  During
Dec., 1995 the election of Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi was
challenged  on the ground of religion and freedom of speech &
expression.  The petitioner argued that Mr.Joshi used some
words like Hindu or Hinduism during his election speech. 
              SC held that to ask for votes in the name of Hindu or
Hinduism do not denote or represent religion. These words are
used for a particular community residing in India. However the
statement of Bal Thakry chief of shiv-sena was held against
religion. Mr joshi was protected due to the freedom of religion
and freedom of speech and expression.    
1  Morality :   To Practice or propagate any such activity in the
name of religion which effects the morality of persons shall be
restricted.  That is to practice or propagate prostitution in the
name of religion, is not valid.
2 Health :- In the shia act, there is a provision for slaughtering
the cows in the public place because of its effects on the
health. So this is not reasonable even if to be related with
religion. 
3 Economic or secular of administrative activities :    means
monitory or financial matters. Some reasonable restrictions
may be imposed on the financial matters of the religious
activities. There are certain secular activities which have no link
with the religion can be prohibited under section 25(2).  Case :
SP Mittal v/s Union of India 1983. In this court held that certain
reasonable restrictions could be imposed in the administrative
activities of any religion. In other case :State of W.Sbegal v/s
Ashutosh Lohri -1995, The SC held that the decision of the
Mohd. Hanif  & Qureshi v/s state of Bihar, the slaughtering of
cows no the essential elements of Muslim religion.
4 Social Welfare Reform :  Certain restricitions may be imposed
for the purpose of social reforms, for example Sati Pratha which
is considered as a religious activity under Hindu religion has
been prohibited by passing the sati pratha prevention act.
Similarly in south Devdasi Pratha according to this pratha  the
girls  were sent to the temple for entertain of the guests in the
temple under this practice, there were incidents by which these
girls were misused, so the restrictions in the name of social
reforms imposed  on this pratha under section 25(2).
Article 26 Freedom to manage religious Affairs: Says that any
denomination has the freedom to manage the affairs of its
religion. For this purpose, following rights have been given:
1. To establish and maintain institution for religious or
charitable purposes.
2. To maintain the religious affair in these institutions.
3. To acquire and hold movable and immovable property for
these institutions.
4. To dispose of such properties according to law.
Article 2 says that no tax can be imposed upon religious
income. Even state can also not impose tax on any person or
property for the promotion of religion.  However Private and
govt. Aided educational institutions can give such directions for
the purpose of religion but in case of govt educational
institutions no religious directions or aid can be given by the
state. There is complete freedom of religion in India except
certain restrictions as explained above. India is a secular state. 
Article 25 to 28 are peculiar and most important articles which
adjust all types of religious communities castes in India that is
why it is said that ,” There is unity in diversity in India.”
Question: What is right to life and personal liberty ? How the
new dimension   Has been given to it by Judiciary?  
OR
Explain the concept of personal liberty and upto what extent it
has been moulded in modern times?
OR
No person shall be deprived of the right of life and personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law under
Aar.21? Comment.   
Ans.  Introduction: -
Personal liberty means freedom of person or body.  The right
of life means to live in the world. These two things - the right of
life and personal liberty are the most important rights of a
person.  No one has the right to take away the personal liberty
of a person. The rights are protected by the constitution itself
under article 21.  The concept of personal liberty borrowed
from the American constitution. Even at international level,
there were declarations which granted personal liberty and
right of life to human beings.  Article 21, has been explained
now a day very liberally by the SC.
     In a case P.N. Bhagwati on behalf of S. Court gave decision
for the people of certain locals of Himachal Pradesh, for
enforcing the right of personal liberty.  In this trial village
people were prohibited during rainy days bringing essential
commodities, such as, food, clothes, shelter due to water-
course on the way. The court held govt., was liable for
constructing a bridge on the water-course.   
Right of life and personal liberty:-  Art.21 “ No person shall be
deprived of the right of life a personal liberty except according
to the procedure established by law"
No Person: means that any person whether citizen or non-
citizen
Deprived: means to take away or to finish or to arrogate a
thing.
Right of Life: Life means to live in the world. For living in the
world mainly three things Roti- Kapra and Makan are necessary.
These things are under the right of life.  
Personal Liberty: It consisted two things i) Personal ii) Liberty.
Personal means relating to person or body. Liberty means
freedom.  So personal liberty means the freedom of the body or
bodily freedom in art. 19 there are certain freedoms, but art 21
contains certain other types of freedoms which are particularly
related with body. For exp. To eat, sleep and sit etc., according
to one’s own choice. 
In A.K. Gopalan v/s State of Madras:  This freedom was
restricted to bodily freedom only but later on in Kharak Singh
case, Maneka Gandhi case and in certain other cases, this
concept of personal liberty was applied widely by the Supreme
Court.  
Case : A.K.Gopalan v/s State of Madras: 1950 : The meaning of
term personal liberty was taken very narrowly.  The court held
the term liberty is linked with the term personal so personal
freedom is only bodily freedom. In this case certain persons
including the petitioner, A.K.Gopalan was aarrested under the
Preventive Detention Act 1950. It was held by s. Court that the
arrest and the imprisonment of the accused under this act is
not against Art.21.
Right of Privacy:-Case : Kharak Singh v/s State of U.P.-1963.:  In
this case the police of UP state suspected that the petitioner
has links with certain Dacoits. For the purpose of investigation,
the police interfered in the personal life of Kharak singh.  Police
even searched his house at night and police used to ask from
the petitioner at midnight about his whereabouts. The
petitioner challenged these actions of the police under art.21.
He argued that these actions of the police infringe his personal
liberty.
            The Supreme Court held that the police could not
interfere in the private life of the petitioner without the
procedure established by law. A human being want to live with
privacy. Thus in this case, the right of privacy was included in
the right of liberty.
 A case Govind v/s State of M.P. 1975  in this case the same
activities of M.P. state police were held valid because they had
force of law.  The state govt., formed certain regulations after
taking power from police act.

A case Raj gopal v/s State of Tamil Nadu 1994 :- The S. Court
held that the right of privacy is a fundamental right under
art.21 of the constitution and a citizen has the right to safe
guard the privacy of his own family, marriage, procreation,
motherhood, child bearing and education among another
matters" No one can punish anything mentioned above without
his consent.

RIGHT TO TRAVEL TO ABROAD:-   A case Satwant Singh  v/s

Delhii Pass Port Officer 1967 in this case the passport of the
petitioner was confiscated by the Passport authority of Delhi
without giving any reason.  The petitioner challenged this
action and argued that the travel to abroad also comes under
the right of personal liberty.  The petitioner was some business
in the foreign country so he used to go to abroad from time to
time.  Supreme Court held that to travel to abroad also come
under the right of personal liberty. 
Menka Gandhi v/s Union of India. 1978 in this case also the
passport of the petitioner was confiscated by the Passport
authorities giving no reason for confiscation to the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged it on the ground of personal liberty.
The passport authorities argued that there is a law for this
purpose, In this law, it is not necessary to give reason for
impounding the passport.  It is also not in the interest of public
to give reasons of impounding the passport. 
 But S. Court rejected all these arguments and said law should
also be based on the principle of natural justice. The procedure
established by the law should be reasonable & according to
natural justice and the opposite party should be given
opportunity of hearing.  So this case changed the concept of
personal liberty dynamically.  
Right of Livelihood : A case People of democratic v/s Delhi
Administration 1982 The workers of Asaid Village 1982 were
paid very minimum wages. A public interest litigation was filed
for this purpose.  The petitioner said that reasonable wages are
necessary for livelihood.  Therefore outright of live hood has
been broken.  This right comes under the right of personal
liberty.  The S. Court held that the right of livelihood comes
under the right of personal liberty under art. 21, but in another
case Sadan Singh v/s New Delhi Municipal Committee 1989 the
S.C, held that right to carry on any trade or business is not
included in the concept of life and personal liberty. The
petitioner who was doing he business on the pavement of the
roads of Delhi had claimed the refusal by the Municipal
authorities to them, to carry on business for their livelihood
resulting in the violation of their right of livelihood under art. 21
of the constitution.  The court distinguished the ruling of the
court in Ollga-Tell’s case and held that it is not applicable in
this case. In another case D.K.Yadav v/s J.N.A Industries-1993:
In this case SC held that the right of life under art.21, includes
right of live-hood and therefore before terminating the service
of an employee a fair plea requires that a reasonable
opportunity should be given to him to explain his case.
RIGHT TO DIE:  A case Marui Sripati Dubal v/s  State of
Maharashtra 1986 the Bombay High court held in case that the
right to die also comes under the right of personal liberty.  So
committing to suicide should not be taken as an offence.  It is a
freedom of human beings to live or to die.  Therefore section
309 of IPC is against Art. 21.  In this case a police constable due
to adverse family circumstances tried to commit suicide. He
was prosecuted for this act. The court held that he was not
liable under section 309 of IPC.  Another case of P.Rathanam
and Nag Bhushan Patnaik v/s.Union of India 1944 :   The S.
Court confirmed the decision of Bombay High Court and held
that the right to live also includes the right to die, so it is
personal liberty of a person to finish his life.  But still there is a
controversy about the mercy death.  The view of some writers
is that this death should be included under the right of personal
liberty. 
Gian Kaur  v/s State of Punjab 1996:- The S. Court held that
‘right to life’ under article 21 of the constitution does not
include, ‘right to die’, right to life is natural right embodied in
art. 21 which means to die a natural death and does not include
the right to commit suicide which is a unnatural extinction of
life and inconsistent with the concept of right to life.

RIGHT OF EDUCATION: A CASE MISS MOHINI JAIN V/S STATE OF

KARNATKA-1992 In this case the petitioner could not get
admission in the professional course due to high capitation
fees.  There are some orders of the Govt., of Karnataka for
taking capitation fees.  This fee was Rs.60,000/-for the out state
candidates. The petitioner could not arrange this amount of
money.  She challenged it on the ground that the right of
education also come under the right of personal liberty.  The
S.C. held its decision according to the petitioner’s argument.  In
Unikrishanan v/s State of Andhra Pradesh 1993 the court
modified the scheme laid down in Mohini Jain case in relation to
NRI students and held that out of entire the seats only 5% seats
can be filled up by NRI students, on the basis of merit, to be
judged by the management of the college concerned and not
on the basis of entrance examination.
Case : All India Imam Organization and others v/s Union of India
The Imams of various mosques in India challenged their wages
etc., under the right of personal liberty. Their wages were very
low on which they could no exist in the world.  They had no
other source of income. They were engaged in this service for
the whole life time. The S. Court held that the right to live in
world is the first most important right of personal living. Here
also their rights of life had been infringed.  The court ordered
the Waqif Board of India for giving sufficient wages to these
Imams for their living in this world. On source basis  now a day
a system of Rain Basera ( Lodging system for poor) has been
started by the Rajasthan Govt., on the orders of the Rajasthan
High Court.
PROFESSIONAL DOCTOR LIABILITY:- In PARMANAND KARTARA
V/S UNION OF INDIA 1989 it has been made a rule now there is
no need to file FIR, according to the rules of Cr.PC for the
purpose of curing the wounded person in an accident.  In this
case, the SC held that it is a duty of professional doctor
whether private or govt., to cure(care) the wounded person firt
and to report to police afterwards.
SUSPENSION OF ARRTICLE 21 DURING EMERGENCY: During
National emergency( under article 352) article 21 can be
suspended.  It means no one can claim personal liberty under
article 21 during national emergency.  There was done in
1962(Chiana attack) in 1971 (Pakistan) and 1975 emergency in
India.  This has also been confined in the Case of : ABM
JABALPUR V/S STATE  OF U.P.-1976:  This case is known as ‘
Habeas Corpus’ case. In this case the SC held that during
emergency Art.21 can be suspended.  But in 44th amendment
1978 it has been added that Art.21 cannot be suspended
during emergency of Indian government. There were many
authorities to the person.  This amendment adopted the
dissented views of justice Khanna given in the above
mentioned cases.  Thus if there is a reasonable procedure
established by law then personal liberty can be taken,
otherwise not.