Article 25-30

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience and

the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion to every individual.
However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to restrictions in the
interest of public order, morality, and health, as well as other provisions in the
Constitution. This means that while individuals have the right to follow and
spread their religion, it cannot disturb public harmony or violate ethical or
health norms.
The article also empowers the State to regulate or restrict activities associated
with religion if they are of a secular nature, such as economic, financial, or
political practices. Additionally, the State can introduce laws for social welfare
and reforms, including opening Hindu religious institutions of a public nature to
all classes and sections of Hindus, ensuring inclusivity.
Article 26

Subject to public order, morality, and health, every religious denomination

or any section thereof shall have the right:
1. To establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable
purposes
Religious groups can set up temples, mosques, gurudwaras, monasteries,
or any institution for religious or philanthropic activities.
2. To manage its own affairs in matters of religion
Each religious denomination has autonomy to govern its religious
practices, rituals, and ceremonies without interference from the State.
3. To own and acquire movable and immovable property
Religious groups can acquire property to support their activities.
4. To administer such property in accordance with law
While denominations can manage their property, their administration is
subject to laws regulating property rights, ensuring no misuse or violation
of public order, morality, or health.
 1. Article 27 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that no individual can be
compelled to pay any taxes if those funds are utilized for the promotion
or maintenance of any religion or religious denomination. The aim is to
maintain the secular nature of the state by preventing the government
from favoring or financially supporting any religion using public funds.
The term “person” has a broader definition and may refer to-
o Individuals
o Companies
o associations or
o entities
Article 28 of the Indian Constitution pertains to the freedom of religion in
educational institutions.
 Educational institutions entirely maintained by State funds are strictly
prohibited from providing any religious instruction. This ensures that
government-run institutions remain secular and do not promote any
particular religion.
 The prohibition in clause (1) does not apply to institutions that, although
administered by the State, have been established under specific
endowments or trusts that mandate religious instruction as part of their
foundation.
 In State-recognized or State-aided educational institutions, no individual
can be compelled to participate in religious instruction or worship
conducted in such institutions or associated premises. Participation
requires explicit consent, either from the individual or, in the case of
minors, their guardian.
Article 29 of the Indian Constitution safeguards the cultural and educational
rights of minorities. It aims to protect the interests of religious, linguistic, and
cultural minorities in India.
 Any section of citizens residing in India having a distinct language,
script, or culture of its own has the right to conserve and promote its
language, script, or culture. This provision ensures the preservation and
development of the unique identity and heritage of minority communities
 No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution
maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds
only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.

Article 30 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right of minorities to

establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. All minorities,
whether based on religion or language, have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice. This includes the right to
determine the type of institution, its affiliation, and the right to appoint staff.
While minorities have the right to establish and administer educational
institutions, they must still adhere to reasonable regulations that the state may
impose in the interest of maintaining standards of education, ensuring welfare,
or preventing maladministration.

Secularism in the Indian Constitution signifies that the State has no official
religion and treats all religions equally. It ensures that the government remains
neutral in religious matters and does not favor or discriminate against any
religion. This principle is enshrined in various provisions, such as the Preamble,
which declares India a "secular" state, and fundamental rights like Articles 25-
28, which guarantee freedom of religion. In case of S.R. Bommai V UOI The 9
judge bench ruled that secularism is a basic feature of constitution, It also
observed religion and politics cannot be mixed together and state should not
follow any policies or courses of action to contrary and upset the balance of all
religions. It is a fundamental right granted to all citizens.
The Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986), also known as the National
Anthem Case The case arose when three children from the Jehovah’s Witnesses
community, Bijoe Emmanuel and his siblings, were expelled from their school in
Kerala for refusing to sing the national anthem during a school assembly. The
children stood respectfully but refrained from singing, citing their religious
beliefs, which prohibit them from participating in any activity they consider an
act of worship other than to God. The school authorities deemed this act
unpatriotic and expelled them. The family challenged the decision, arguing that
their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and
expression) and Article 25 (freedom of religion) had been violated. The
Supreme Court ruled in their favor, stating that their silent and respectful
behavior during the anthem demonstrated no disrespect. The Court emphasized
that no person could be compelled to sing the anthem if doing so conflicts with
their sincerely held religious beliefs.

In case of Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v The State of Bombay

The case involved provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, which
allowed the appointment of the Charity Commissioner as a trustee for public
trusts, including religious institutions like temples and Maths. The law also
granted powers to the Commissioner and courts to manage the property and
funds of such trusts, even diverting them for purposes considered proper by the
authorities. Religious institutions argued that these provisions infringed upon
their constitutional rights under Article 26(b) to manage their own affairs in
matters of religion. The primary issue was whether the provisions of the Act
allowing the Charity Commissioner to act as a trustee and divert funds of
religious trusts violated the fundamental rights of religious denominations
under Article 26(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees their right to manage
religious affairs. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 44, and
Clauses (3) to (6) of Section 47, which allowed the Charity Commissioner to
act as a trustee for religious trusts, were unconstitutional as they encroached
upon the autonomy of religious denominations. These provisions were declared
void for violating Article 26(b).

In Church of God v K.K.R Majestic Colony Welfare association

The case involved the Church of God (Full Gospel) located in K.K.R. Nagar,
Chennai, which conducted prayers using drums, guitars, and loudspeakers.
Residents of the area, through the K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association,
complained to the State Pollution Control Board and the police, stating that the
noise caused by these activities created a nuisance. A noise test conducted by
the Pollution Board revealed that much of the noise in the area was due to
traffic, but the residents argued that the Church’s use of loudspeakers added to
the disturbance. The Welfare Association approached the High Court, seeking
action to address the noise caused by the Church, questioning whether it
infringed on their right to live peacefully and whether the authorities could
intervene in religious practices under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Whether the Church’s right to practice and profess its religion, protected under
Articles 25 and 26, was violated by restrictions on the use of loudspeakers.

The Court held that no fundamental right is absolute, including the right to
religious freedom. Rights must coexist harmoniously with the rights of others,
such as the right to live in a peaceful environment under Article 21. The State
has the authority to impose reasonable restrictions to balance competing
interests in society. The Court observed that increasing noise pollution cannot
be justified, even if it stems from religious practice

In Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerela

The Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, dedicated to Lord Ayyappan, a deity believed
to be an eternal celibate (Naishtika Brahmachari), had long restricted the entry
of women aged 10 to 50 years, citing religious tradition and the purity of the
deity. This restriction was codified in Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of
Public Worship (Authorization of Entry) Rules, 1965. The temple authorities
and devotees argued that this practice was an essential religious tradition and
protected under Article 26(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees religious
denominations the right to manage their own affairs. The Kerala High Court
upheld this restriction in 1991, emphasizing the chief priest's authority to
determine religious practices.
In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association challenged the ban in the
Supreme Court, arguing that it violated the constitutional rights of women,
particularly under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 25
(freedom of religion), and 51A(e) (fundamental duties promoting dignity of
women). The petitioners claimed that the restriction denied women their
freedom to worship and was not an essential religious practice.
 Violation of Fundamental Rights: The restriction infringed on women’s
right to equality (Article 14) and non-discrimination (Article 15). It also denied
them the right to worship freely under Article 25(1). The Court emphasized that
the constitutional framework prohibits practices that discriminate based on
gender or physiological differences like menstruation.
 Non-Essential Religious Practice: The Court ruled that the exclusion of
women did not qualify as an essential religious practice of the Ayyappan faith.
While religious denominations have autonomy under Article 26(b), this
autonomy is subject to constitutional values and cannot contravene
fundamental rights.
 Invalidity of Rule 3(b): Rule 3(b) of the 1965 Rules, which supported the
exclusion of women, was declared unconstitutional. The Court held that the
State has the power under Article 25(2)(b) to reform religious practices and
ensure that all classes and sections of Hindus have access to public temples,
including women.

IN Rev Stainislaus v State of Mp and others

the appellant, was prosecuted under Sections 3, 4, and 5(2) of the Madhya
Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhiniyam, 1968, which penalized forceful or
fraudulent religious conversions. The prosecution was initiated by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate of Baloda-Bazar. The appellant objected, claiming that
the State Legislature lacked the authority to pass the Act and argued that the
power to legislate on such matters belonged solely to Parliament. He also
contended that the Act violated Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which
guarantees the right to freely practice and propagate religion.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice A.N. Ray,
interpreted the term "propagate" in Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution,
which guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
The Court relied on definitions from authoritative sources, such as the Shorter
Oxford Dictionary and the Century Dictionary, to clarify that "propagate"
means to disseminate or spread the tenets of a religion through exposition,
rather than to convert others to one's religion. Chief Justice Ray emphasized
that while Article 25(1) grants individuals the freedom to share and explain
their religious beliefs, it does not include the right to convert another person to
one’s religion. Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of
conscience to every citizen, which means that each person has the right to
believe in, practice, or choose their own religion. This right is not limited to
followers of any particular religion but applies equally to everyone.
However, the Constitution does not grant the right to convert another person to
one's religion. If someone deliberately tries to convert another person, it could
interfere with that individual's freedom of conscience. This is because forcing or
persuading someone to change their religion impacts their personal freedom to
choose their beliefs.

Sri Venkataramana Devaruand v State of Mysore

This case involves the trustees of the Sri Venkataramana Temple, managed by
the Gowda Saraswath Brahmin community. The temple was governed by a
scheme made under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the
Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act (1947) was passed, which allowed
Harijans (untouchables) to enter Hindu temples, the trustees argued that the
temple was private and should be exempt from the Act. However, the
government disagreed, stating that the Act applied to the temple. The trustees
then filed a suit in court, asking for a declaration that the temple was a
denominational one, founded exclusively for their community, and that the Act
violated their rights under the Constitution. They argued that Section 3 of the
Act was unconstitutional because it conflicted with their fundamental rights
under Article 26(b) of the Constitution, which grants religious denominations
the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.

he Court explained that the term "religious institutions of a public character"

includes temples meant for the public or specific communities, such as
denominational temples. These temples are subject to the regulations under
Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution.  The Court noted that while the right of
the public to enter a temple and worship is protected by Article 25(2)(b), this
right is not absolute. It is subject to limitations to ensure harmony with the
denominational rights guaranteed under Article 26(b). The rights of a religious
denomination to manage its religious affairs, which may include regulating
who can participate in specific ceremonies, must be respected as long as they
do not nullify the public’s right to worship.

The case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka is a landmark

judgment that clarified the rights of minority and private educational institutions
under the Indian Constitution and the extent to which the government can
regulate them. The case arose from challenges by minority institutions to laws
and policies that imposed restrictions on their autonomy, particularly in areas
like admissions, fees, and faculty appointments. Minority educational
institutions are protected under Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which grants
them the right to establish and administer institutions of their choice. However,
the government argued that these institutions perform a public function by
providing education and are therefore subject to regulatory oversight to ensure
fairness, equity, and quality education. The petitioners contended that excessive
government interference violated their constitutional rights and undermined the
purpose of protecting minority institutions.

ISSUE
 Whether Article 30(1) grants absolute autonomy to minority educational
institutions to establish and administer their institutions without any state
interference

 to what extent can the state impose regulations, such as quotas, admission
policies, or fee structures, on minority educational institutions, especially
when they claim autonomy under Article 30(1)?
 What is the level of autonomy of non-minority private educational
institutions under Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession or
trade), and to what extent can the state regulate these institutions in the
public interest?
The Court ruled that minority institutions have the freedom to admit students of
their choice and manage their internal affairs, provided the admission process is
fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary. Right to admit students of their choice, To
set up fee structure,appoint staff, govern internal management. It also
clarified that while private non-minority institutions enjoy autonomy under
Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession), they are subject to greater
regulation. For example laws relating to taxation, sanitation, social welfare,
public order and morality. The right to administer under article 30 doesn’t
include right to maladminister. Furthermore, the Court addressed the
contentious issue of capitation fees and profiteering by professional institutions.
It held that the right to establish and administer an institution does not include
the right to exploit students or charge exorbitant fees
P.A Inamdar v State of Maharashtra

This case addressed a significant constitutional issue involving the autonomy of

minority educational institutions in India. The petitioner, P. A. Inamdar,
represented a group of private unaided minority institutions in Maharashtra. The
respondent was the State of Maharashtra, representing the state government.
The central issue in the case was the autonomy of minority educational
institutions and their right to admit students of their choice, specifically in
relation to the state government’s policies of a common entrance test and
reservation quotas for admissions into professional courses. The case revolved
around the interpretation and application of Article 30(1) of the Indian
Constitution, which guarantees religious and linguistic minorities the right to
establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The
Maharashtra government had implemented reservation policies, including
quotas for socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs), in private
unaided institutions, which were challenged by the petitioner as an
infringement on their autonomy.

Do minority educational institutions have the right to establish and administer

their institutions without interference from the state, as protected under Article
30 of the Indian Constitution?
The Court ruled that the state cannot enforce reservation policies or allocate
quotas in admissions to unaided educational institutions including minority
institutions as established in the decisions of Pai Foundation and Kerala
Education Bill. Such actions would infringe on the autonomy and rights of these
institutions equating to an unacceptable nationalization of seats. The Court also
noted that unassisted institutions can set their own admission procedures but
provided they are fair, transparent and non-exploitative.Minority unaided
institutions have the fundamental right to select students without state
interference. The institutions regarding fee structures can determine their fees
but cannot charge capitation fees or engage in profiteering.

The admission process for unaided minority educational institutions, such as

schools and undergraduate colleges where merit-based selection is minimal,
largely falls outside the regulatory purview of the State or universities, except
for stipulating basic qualifications and minimum eligibility to uphold academic
standards. This autonomy stems from the right of minority institutions to
manage their affairs under Article 30 of the Constitution. While these
institutions are free to admit students on a transparent and merit-conscious
basis, regulatory measures may still be implemented to ensure educational
standards, particularly in professional courses. Receiving government aid does
not strip a minority institution of its status; however, aided institutions must
balance their right to admit minority students with the obligation to admit a
reasonable number of non-minority students to safeguard Article 30(1) rights
and prevent infringement of Article 29(2). The percentage of non-minority
students to be admitted should be determined based on factors such as the type
of institution and educational needs, as notified by the State.

Aruna Roy v UOI

The case arose from a challenge to the National Curriculum Framework for
School Education (NCFSE) introduced by the National Council of Educational
Research and Training (NCERT) in 2000. The curriculum emphasized the need
for "value-based education" in schools to nurture moral and ethical values in
students. As part of this framework, religious texts and principles were included
as references to illustrate ethical teachings. The petitioners, led by Aruna Roy, a
social activist, argued that the curriculum violated the secular fabric of the
Constitution by introducing elements of religious instruction in state-aided
educational institutions. They raised concerns that:
1. Religious Education vs. Religious Instruction: Religious education
promoting universal values could turn into religious instruction, which is
prohibited in government-funded schools under Article 28(1) of the
Constitution.
2. Threat to Secularism: Inclusion of religious texts and principles,
particularly from dominant religions, could marginalize minority
 communities and violate the secular character enshrined in the Preamble
and Articles 25-28 of the Constitution.
3. Potential for Bias: The selection of religious texts was perceived to have
a bias toward majority religions, potentially fostering communal divisions
and undermining the cultural and religious diversity of India.

 Does the inclusion of religious texts in the NCFSE violate the secular
character of the Constitution as enshrined under Articles 25, 26, and 28?
 Can value-based education be imparted using religious principles in
state-aided institutions without contravening the principles of secularism?

The Court observed that secularism under the Indian Constitution does not
imply irreligion but rather a principled distance from religion. The Court
reaffirmed that secularism in India means equal respect for all religions. Unlike
the concept of strict separation of religion and state (as in some other countries),
Indian secularism permits the state to engage with religion to promote unity and
moral values, provided it does not privilege one religion over another.

  The Court distinguished between religious education and religious

instruction. Religious education involves the study of ethical values and
principles derived from religion but does not advocate or propagate any
particular faith.
 Religious instruction, which involves teaching or indoctrinating a
particular religion, is prohibited in state-aided institutions under Article
28(1). The Court held that the curriculum did not amount to religious
instruction.
 The Court acknowledged the need for moral education in schools and held
that deriving ethical principles from religious texts is permissible as long as
these principles are universal, non-discriminatory, and do not promote any
specific religion. (Value education)
The Re Kerala Education Bill, 1957 case (AIR 1958 SC 956) is a landmark
decision by the Supreme Court of India. It examined the constitutional validity
of certain provisions of the Kerala Education Bill, 1957. The case is significant
for its interpretation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution
of India, especially the rights related to education, minority institutions, and the
state's regulatory powers. he Bill contained provisions that:
 Allowed the government to take control of private schools under certain
circumstances.
 Required private schools to seek prior approval for appointing teachers.
 Mandated the payment of salaries directly to teachers through
government funds.
The Governor of Kerala, under Article 143 of the Constitution, referred the Bill
to the President of India for his consideration. The President, in turn, referred it
to the Supreme Court for an advisory opinion.

Did the provisions of the Kerala Education Bill infringe upon the rights of
minorities under Article 30(1)?

 The court upheld the right of minorities to establish and administer

educational institutions under Article 30(1). It held that the Bill's provisions
allowing government control over private schools violated this right. Minority
institutions must have the freedom to manage their schools without undue
interference.