Article 25 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 25 of the Constitution of India – Freedom of Religion
Text of Article 25:
Article 25(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.”
Article 25(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 may be 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.
Key Concepts of Article 25:
Freedom of Conscience: Every individual is free to form their own religious beliefs.
Profess: Declare one’s faith and beliefs openly.
Practise: Perform religious rituals and customs.
Propagate: Spread or promote one’s religion to others.
Reasonable Restrictions: This freedom is not absolute and is subject to:
Public Order
Morality
Health
Other Fundamental Rights (like equality – Article 14, and prohibition of discrimination – Article 15)
State Regulation Permitted:
State can regulate secular activities related to religion.
State can implement social reform even if it affects religious practices (like entry of all castes into temples).
Important Case Laws on Article 25:
🔹 The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954 SCR 1005)
Significance: Landmark judgment on what constitutes an essential religious practice.
Held: Article 25 protects only essential religious practices, not every activity associated with religion.
Outcome: State cannot interfere in purely religious matters, but can regulate secular aspects.
🔹 Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986 AIR 748)
Facts: Three Jehovah’s Witness children refused to sing the national anthem in school as it was against their religious beliefs.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the children, stating that freedom of conscience under Article 25 protects such acts unless they disturb public order.
Importance: Highlights the individual right to conscience even if the act is unpopular.
🔹 Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977 AIR 908)
Issue: Whether the right to “propagate” religion includes the right to convert another person.
Held: The Supreme Court held that propagation does not include conversion.
Outcome: Forcible conversions are not protected under Article 25.
🔹 Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690)
Issue: Ban on entry of women aged 10–50 in Sabarimala Temple.
Held: The Supreme Court struck down the ban, holding it was against gender equality and not an essential religious practice.
Importance: Balance between religious freedom and gender justice.
Conclusion:
Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion as a fundamental right, but it is not absolute. It must balance with public interest, other rights, and social reform. Courts have played a vital role in interpreting religious freedom, particularly around essential religious practices, equality, and conversion.
RELATED Blog
0 comments