Right to Freedom of Religion Article 25

Introduction	Jurisprudence
Provision	article 25-28
Case laws	Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 2 SCC 11 N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2002) 8 SCC 106 Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta (2004) 12 SCC 770 Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615
Conclusion	Present problem

What is Right to Freedom of Religion?

The Right to Freedom of Religion is a fundamental right that allows every person to freely choose, follow, practice, and spread their religion. It protects an individual’s freedom of conscience—the right to believe or not believe in any religion—and ensures that the State does not favor or discriminate against any religion. In simple terms, it means you have the right to believe in any religion, practice it, preach it, or not follow any religion at all—and no one, including the government, can force you otherwise.

Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—(a)regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which maybe associated with religious practice; (b)providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.

Freedom of Conscience:

Freedom of conscience means the right of every individual to think, believe, and hold personal beliefs freely, especially in matters of religion, morality, or faith, without any pressure or interference from others, including the government. In simple terms, it’s your inner freedom to decide what you believe is right or wrong, and whether or not to believe in a religion or spiritual path.

Example: If someone chooses to be an atheist, follow Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, or any other belief system—that choice comes from their freedom of conscience. No one can force you to follow a particular religion or stop you from changing your belief.

Freedom to Profess and Practice Religion:

Freedom to Profess religion means that one can openly declare and express his faith of religion. In other words, you can say, “I am Hindu”, “I believe in Islam”, “I follow Christianity”, etc. publicly or privately, no one can stop you.

Freedom to Practice religion means that one can follow the rituals, customs and ceremonies of his religion. In other words, You are free to pray, worship, fast, celebrate religious festivals, and follow religious teachings as part of your faith.

Example: Muslims offering Namaz, Hindus celebrating Diwali, Christians attending Sunday church, Sikhs wearing a turban

Freedom to propogate religion:

Propagation means the right to spread or promote your religion to others through speech, writing, teaching, or peaceful persuasion. In simple terms, one can talk to others about his religion, share its teachings, or encourage them to learn more—but you cannot force or manipulate anyone to convert.

Exceptions to Freedom of Religion under Article 25:

1. Public Order: Cannot disturb peace or law (e.g., loudspeakers at night).
2. Morality: Practices that are immoral (like untouchability or human sacrifice) are not protected.
3. Health: Religious acts that harm public health can be restricted (e.g., no animal sacrifice in residential areas).

But the state can make laws related to freedom of religion related to:

1. Regulating or limiting any economic, financial, political or any other secular activity associated with religious practice.
2. Administration of any social welfare and reforms associated with it.
3. Inaugurating any Hindu religious institutions of public character for all the Hindus irrespective of their class and sections.

Example: The government can ban untouchability or child marriage, even if someone claims it’s a part of their religion. It can open temples to all castes (like the Temple Entry Movement).

Article 25 applies to all persons, not just citizens. So even foreigners in India enjoy this right.

How is the right to freedom of religion a guarantee of secularism by the Indian Constitution?

Secularism in India means that the State has no official religion and treats all religions equally. It neither favors nor discriminates against any religion. The word, “secularism” is also a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. It was added by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution. Here’s how:

1. Equal Respect for All Religions (Article 25): Every person is free to follow any religion or no religion at all. This ensures that no religion is given special status. It promotes religious harmony and coexistence.
2. No State Religion: The Indian government does not adopt or promote any one religion.Public funds cannot be used to support or promote religious activities (Article 27).
3. State Can Intervene for Social Reform (Article 25(2)): The Constitution allows the government to regulate religious practices if they are harmful or discriminatory.This ensures that religion cannot be used to justify injustice, like untouchability or child marriage.
4. Religious Freedom with Reasonable Limits: Religious rights are not absolute—they are subject to public order, morality, and health.This balance ensures that one person’s religious freedom does not harm another’s rights or the society at large.
5. No Forced Religious Instruction (Article 28): Students in government-funded schools cannot be forced to learn religious doctrines.This keeps the education system secular and inclusive.

Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs

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.

Article 27: Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion

No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.

Article 28: Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions

(1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds. (2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to an educational institution which is administered by the State but has been established under any endowment or trust which requires that religious instruction shall be imparted in such institution. (3) No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto.

CASE LAWS

Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu

Facts: The Tamil Nadu government acquired land for housing, prompting landowners, including Seshammal, to contest the decision. They claimed that the compensation offered was unfair and that there were procedural errors in the acquisition process. Additionally, the Tamil Nadu government amended the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959 in an effort to abolish the hereditary principle of appointing temple priests (Archakas). The aim was to eliminate the practice of hereditary priest appointments (Archakas and Pujaris), promote social reform, and remove caste-based appointments, particularly following recommendations regarding scheduled castes and a Supreme Court judgment. However, the petitioners from the temples argued that this amendment interfered with their religious practices and could undermine the sanctity of the temples. Issue: Whether the amendment is constitutional? Whether their rights under article 25 & 26 violated? Judgment: The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the appointment of an Archaka (temple priest) is a secular function, while the performance of religious services by the priests is an integral part of the religion. The court made a distinction between the secular and religious aspects, stating that the guidelines provided by the Agamas (scriptures) are significant only for carrying out these religious services.Anyone, regardless of caste or creed, can be appointed as an Archaka if they are well-versed in the Agamas and qualified to perform the rituals required for temple worship. Following this SC decision, the Madras High Court (HC) has ruled that caste-based ancestry will not play a role in the appointment of an Archaka, provided the individual selected meets the necessary qualifications. The Supreme Court ruled that the government could acquire the land, but they must compensate the landowners with a higher amount. This compensation must reflect the current market value of the land. Additionally, the government is required to pay interest on this extra amount.

N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board 

Facts: N. Adithayan challenged the appointment of a non-Brahmin Santhikaran in a Kerala temple managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, sparking a legal battle over tradition and competence. Adithayan argued that the appointment violated long-standing customs, asserting that only Malayala Brahmins were permitted to perform poojas. He claimed that this deviation undermined the temple’s religious and historical significance.The Travancore Devaswom Board, which is responsible for the temple’s administration under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act of 1950, defended its decision by emphasizing the appointee’s qualifications rather than caste. Following the vacancy created by the removal of a temporary Brahmin priest, the Board followed standard procedure by advertising the position and selecting a qualified candidate from the selection list, who, notably, was a non-Brahmin.This appointment triggered protests from traditionalists, prompting Adithayan and other devotees to file a petition in the Kerala High Court. They sought a writ of mandamus to remove the priest, arguing that the appointment violated established traditions. The legal challenge raised fundamental questions about the caste system and the application of reservation policies within the context of temple rituals. Issue: Whether one has to uphold cultural practices inherent in religious practices or the Constitution of a country?Whether the vocation should be based on merit, training, or descent? Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that appointing a non-Brahmin Santhikaran was constitutionally valid. This decision established that merit, defined by qualifications and training, should take precedence over caste in religious appointments. The Court emphasized the need to reconcile religious freedoms with principles of constitutional equality and non-discrimination, asserting that tradition must adapt to align with modern constitutional standards.The Court gave following guidelines:1. The Court mandated that the Travancore Devaswom Board must base its appointments solely on the qualifications and training of candidates, explicitly prohibiting any consideration of caste or the deity they worship.2. Additionally, the Court emphasized that all actions of religious organizations must adhere to the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. The Supreme Court, having examined the case, agreed with the decision of the Kerala High Court’s Full Bench and saw no need to alter it. Therefore, the appeal was unsuccessful and was dismissed.

Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta

Facts: The founder of the Ananda Marga sect has stated that Tandava Dance is an essential practice of the Ananda Margi faith. A member of the sect, referred to as the petitioner, requested permission from the police commissioner to perform the Tandava Dance in a public street, which would include the use of live snakes, knives, tridents, or skulls. In the Ananda Margi tradition, the Tandava Dance symbolizes both death and life, with the skull representing death and the knife representing life. The police commissioner granted permission for the dance to be performed but prohibited the procession from including knives, live snakes, or tridents. Subsequently, the police department issued an order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC), declaring the performance against public morals. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226. The Honorable High Court ruled that the police should not disrupt the Tandava Dance and allowed the procession to include knives, snakes, and skulls. Following this decision, the police commissioner appealed to the Honorable Supreme Court under Article 32 regarding the High Court’s ruling. Issue: Whether Ananda Marga form a religious denomination under Article 26 of the Indian Constitution?
Whether Tandava dance in public is an essential practice of Ananda Margi faith? Judgment: The court, after hearing arguments from both sides, concluded that while the Tandava dance is a practice followed by Ananda Margis, it does not constitute a separate denomination within Hinduism. The court emphasized that since Ananda Margis was established in 1955 and the Tandava dance originated in 1966, it cannot be deemed an essential religious practice. Additionally, the public performance of the Tandava dance was not recognized as a fundamental aspect of religious ritual. The court distinguished between private and public performances of the Tandava dance, stating that only private performances are permissible, and public street performances are not mandatory. The court upheld public policy by prohibiting the Ananda Margis’ Tandava dance parade, which could disrupt social peace. The court also aimed to prevent executive overreach by setting limits on the government’s use of constitutional powers.

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala

Facts: In July 1985, a typical school day in Kerala marked the beginning of a legal dispute that ultimately reached the Indian Supreme Court. Bijoe Emmanuel and his siblings, who were students in Kerala, practiced the Jehovah’s Witness faith, which adheres to specific Biblical interpretations. Their religious beliefs prevented them from participating in activities they viewed as worshipping anything other than their God, including singing the national anthem, which they considered an act of idolatry. To demonstrate respect for the national anthem, they chose to stand silently and respectfully while it was sung, a gesture they felt fulfilled both their religious obligations and their duty to the nation.The Emmanuel siblings’ expulsion from school for refusing to sing the national anthem, due to their Jehovah’s Witness beliefs, led their parents to file a petition in the Kerala High Court, claiming a violation of their religious freedom under Article 25. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the expulsion. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether the expulsion of three children from school for their refusal to sing the national anthem of India was consistent with the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion? Judgment: The Supreme Court, in its judgment, ruled in favor of the students, declaring them not guilty. The Court determined that expelling the students for refusing to salute the national flag and sing the national anthem violated their fundamental right to freedom of conscience and religion, as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.The Court emphasized that the right to freedom of conscience and religion is a fundamental right and that the state should not interfere with individuals’ beliefs and practices unless they pose a threat to public order, morality, or health.Additionally, the Court stated that the regulatory measures issued by the Kerala Department of Education, which mandated compulsory participation in singing the national anthem in schools, were merely “departmental instructions.” As such, they lacked the statutory force required under Article 19 of the Constitution to limit the right to free expression.A person is entitled to the protection of fundamental rights if those rights are infringed by a court order. The Supreme Court reversed the Kerala High Court’s ruling, finding that the students’ expulsion violated their fundamental rights. It ordered the state of Kerala to readmit them to school, emphasizing the importance of tolerance as a core principle of Indian tradition, philosophy, and the Constitution.