Article 27 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 27 of the Constitution of India – Explained with Case Law
🔹 Text of 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.”
🔹 Key Elements of Article 27
Protection from Religious Taxation:
The State cannot compel citizens to pay taxes used for promoting or maintaining a specific religion or religious denomination.
Secular Use of Tax Money:
Tax revenue must be used for secular purposes, not to support any religious cause directly.
Scope:
This article does not prohibit State funding of activities where the objective is secular but may incidentally benefit a religion.
🔹 Objective of Article 27
To maintain the secular character of the Indian State.
To ensure separation of religion and State in financial matters.
To protect individual freedom of conscience by preventing forced support of religious practices through taxes.
🔹 Important Case Laws on Article 27
✅ Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt
AIR 1954 SC 282
Facts: Challenge to the levy of a fee on religious institutions.
Held: The Supreme Court distinguished taxes (which fall under Article 27) from fees (for services rendered).
Principle: Only taxes are prohibited under Article 27, not fees levied for administration or regulation of religious institutions.
✅ Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay
AIR 1954 SC 388
Facts: Bombay Public Trusts Act was challenged as interfering with religious freedom.
Held: The State cannot appropriate tax revenue for promoting or maintaining any religion.
Relevance: Reinforced the non-funding of religious propagation by the State.
✅ Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali
AIR 1961 SC 1402
Held: If the purpose is secular or administrative, incidental benefit to a religion does not violate Article 27.
Significance: Gave a practical and balanced approach to Article 27.
✅ Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple v. State of U.P.
(1997) 4 SCC 606
Facts: State took over management of a temple.
Held: Management of a temple by State for better administration does not amount to religious promotion.
Relevance: Article 27 is not violated if the State acts for secular goals, like preventing mismanagement.
🔹 Illustration: What Is Allowed vs. Not Allowed Under Article 27
| Allowed | Not Allowed |
|---|---|
| State grants for preservation of cultural heritage including religious places | Using tax funds for religious propagation |
| Regulating religious institutions | Paying from taxes to maintain priests or conduct religious ceremonies |
| Administrative oversight for public order | Funding religious festivals from general taxes |
🔹 Conclusion
Article 27 upholds State secularism by ensuring public tax funds are not diverted for religious promotion.
It safeguards citizens from being forced to financially support any religion.
The judiciary has consistently interpreted Article 27 to protect freedom of conscience while allowing reasonable regulation of religious institutions for secular purposes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments