Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Right To Freedom of Religion
Right To Freedom of Religion
Indian Constitution
Introduction:
Religion is a matter of belief or faith. The constitution of India
recognizes the fact, how important religion is in the life of people of India and
hence, provides for the right to freedom of religion under Articles 25 to Article
28. The Constitution of India envisages a secular model and provides that
every person has the right and freedom to choose and practice his or her
religion. In a number of cases, the Apex Court has held that secularism is the
basic structure of the Constitution, the most important being
the Kesavananda Bharati case. People in India mainly practice Islam,
Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and, Christianity. In India, there are
religion-specific laws and Goa is the only state to have a Uniform Civil Code
known as the Goa Civil Code. The Constitution supports religious harmony
which means the people of India show love and affection to different religions
of the country.
Secularism:
The 9 judge bench, in this case, ruled that Secularism is the basic
feature of the Constitution of India. It also observed that religion and politics
cannot be mixed together. If the State follows un secular policies or courses
of action then it acts contrary to the constitutional mandate. In a State, all are
equal and should be treated equally. Religion has no place in the matters of
State. Freedom of religion as a fundamental right is guaranteed to all persons
in India but from the point of view of the State, religion, faith, and belief are
immaterial.
It further provides that this article shall not affect any existing law and shall
not prevent the state from making any law relating to:
Doctrine or Belief:
In Hasan Ali v. Mansoor Ali the Bombay High Court held that Articles
25 and Article 26 not only prevents doctrines or beliefs of religion but also the
acts done in pursuance of religion. It thus guarantees ceremonies, modes of
worship, rituals, observances, etc which are an integral part of religion. What
is the essential or integral part of a religion has to be determined in the light
of the doctrines and practices that are regarded by the community as a part
of their religion and also must be included in them.
In the case of SP Mittal v. Union of India, the court held that Religion
need not be theistic. It is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief but has an
outward expression in the act as well.
Meaning of Religion:
The constitution does not define the term ‘religion’ and ‘matters of
religion’. Hence, It is left to the Supreme Court to determine the judicial
meaning of these terms.
In M Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das Supreme Court held
that the State has the sovereign or prerogative power to acquire the property.
The state also has the power to acquire places of worship such as mosque,
church, temple, etc and the acquisition of places of worship per se is not
violative of Articles 25 and 26. However, the acquisition of place of worship
which is significant and essential for the religion and if the extinction of such
place breaches their (persons belonging to that religion) right to practice
religion then the acquisition of such places cannot be permitted.
The Supreme Court in In re, Noise Pollution case, has given certain
directions to be followed to control noise pollution in the name of religion:
Religious denomination:
In this case, certain amendments were made in the year 1951 and 1965
to the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920. These amendments were
challenged by the petitioner on the ground that:
In this case, The validity of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 was
challenged on the ground that the Act is discriminatory in nature and violates
Article 26 (d) of the Constitution. It was contended by the petitioner (Raja of
Puri) that the temple was his private property and he had the sole right over
management as well as superintendence of the temple. The Act took away
the sole management of the temple from the appellant and vested it with the
Committee. Dismissing the appeal the Supreme Court held that there was no
violation of the fundamental right of freedom of religion of the petitioner and
the Act only dealt with the secular management of the institution.
The petitioner (Atheist Society of India), in this case, prayed for the
issuance of writ of Mandamus to direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh to
give instruction to all the concerned departments to forbid the performance of
religious practices such as breaking of coconuts, chanting mantras, etc at the
State function on the ground that the performing of these practices is against
secular policy of the constitution. The petitioner’s prayers were rejected by
the court on the grounds that it infringes upon the right to religion and if
permitted it will be against the principle of secularism, which is the basic
structure of our Constitution. It would lead to depriving of the right to freedom
of thought, faith, worship.
Article 26 (d) says that a religious denomination has the right to administer its
own property but it should be in accordance with Law. In Durgah Committee
Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali the Supreme Court observed that if the religious
denomination never had the right to administer property or if it has lost its
right then such right cannot be created under Article 26 and therefore cannot
be invoked.
Freedom from taxes for promotion of any particular religion (Art. 27):
Article 28 prohibits:
In this case, a PIL was filed under Article 32 wherein it was contended by
the petitioner that the National Curriculum Framework for School Education
(NCFSE) which was published by the National Council of Educational
Research and Training is violative of the provisions of the constitution. It was
also contended that it was anti-secular and was also without the consultation
of the Central Advisory Board of Education and hence it should be set aside.
NCFSE provided education for value development relating to basic human
values, social justice, non-violence, self-discipline, compassion, etc. The
court ruled that there is no violation of Article 28 and there is also no
prohibition to study religious philosophy for having value-based life in a
society.
Conclusion
India is the most diverse country with respect to religion. Being a secular
country it does not have its own religion and every citizen has the right to
choose, practice, propagate and even change his or her religion. However,
these rights are not absolute but subject to certain restrictions provided by
the constitution. No person in the name of religion can do any act that is
opposed to the public policy or creating any kind of disturbances or
intolerance among the people of India.