Harmony in Diversity: Unveiling the Essence of Articles 25-28 of the Indian Constitution
India, a tapestry of diverse cultures and religions, places a premium on safeguarding the fundamental rights of its citizens. Articles 25-28 of the Indian Constitution encapsulate the Right to Freedom of Religion, affirming the nation’s commitment to fostering a harmonious coexistence of various faiths. This blog post aims to unravel the nuances of these articles, emphasizing their significance, and delving into a pivotal case that has shaped the landscape of religious freedom in India.
Article 25: Embracing Freedom of Conscience and Religious Practice
Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees each citizen the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion. This encompasses the freedom to follow any belief system of choice, underscoring the nation’s commitment to secularism.
Landmark Case: Shirur Mutt Case (1954)
In the Shirur Mutt case, the Supreme Court clarified that the right to religious freedom under Article 25 is not absolute and subject to public order, morality, and health. This landmark case laid the foundation for understanding the limitations and reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of religion.
Article 26: Nurturing Autonomy in Religious Affairs
Article 26 recognizes the right of religious denominations to autonomously manage their affairs, including the establishment and maintenance of institutions for religious and charitable purposes. This provision ensures self-governance for religious groups, free from external interference.
Landmark Case: Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958)
In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the autonomy of religious denominations in matters of administration and management of their properties. The judgment reinforced the principle that the state should not interfere in the internal affairs of religious institutions unless there is evidence of maladministration.
Article 27: Shielding Against Compulsory Financial Contributions to Religion
Article 27 ensures that no individual can be compelled to pay taxes for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion. This safeguard shields individuals from financial contributions to religious practices or institutions against their will.
Landmark Case: Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986)
The Bijoe Emmanuel case dealt with the question of whether compelling students to sing the national anthem, which goes against their religious beliefs, violates Article 27. The Supreme Court held that forcing someone to act against their conscience could infringe upon their freedom of religion.
Article 28: Balancing Education and Religious Instruction
Article 28 stipulates that no religious instruction shall be provided in state-maintained educational institutions. However, institutions not fully maintained by the state can offer religious instruction under certain conditions.
Landmark Case: D.A.V. College, Bhatinda v. State of Punjab (1971)
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of Article 28, emphasizing that the prohibition of religious instruction in state-maintained institutions is aimed at ensuring a secular education system. The judgment underscored the importance of maintaining a balance between education and religious instruction.
Landmark Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
The Kesavananda Bharati case stands as a watershed moment in Indian judicial history. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure, including fundamental liberties like the right to freedom of religion. This decision shaped the constitutional interpretation of religious freedom in India, emphasising the inviolability of core principles.
Current Scenario:
Contemporary discussions on religious freedom in India centre around issues such as religious conversions, minority rights, and the management of religious institutions. These discussions, both legal and societal, contribute to an ongoing dialogue on the interpretation and application of Articles 25-28.
As India progresses towards inclusivity, the Right to Freedom of Religion remains pivotal in protecting individual beliefs. The Kesavananda Bharati case serves as a beacon, reminding us of the judiciary’s role in upholding fundamental rights and preserving India’s secular ethos. Engaging in constructive dialogue and adhering to the principles enshrined in Articles 25-28 are crucial for fostering a pluralistic and tolerant India.
Source: THE Hindu
Also Read: Right Against Exploitation
