Introduction
Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise, and propagate religion. Unlike several other fundamental rights, this freedom extends to citizens and non-citizens alike, safeguarding both the internal domain of belief and its external manifestations. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to express constitutional limitations to balance individual faith with societal welfare.
Dimensions of Religious Freedom under Article 25(1)
Article 25(1) encompasses four distinct facets of religious liberty:
- Freedom of Conscience: The absolute inner freedom of an individual to mould their relation with God, higher powers, or universe according to their inner conviction. It encompasses the freedom to choose agnosticism, atheism, or humanism without state interference.
- Right to Profess: The external declaration of one's religious belief and affiliations openly, without fear of persecution or discrimination.
- Right to Practise: The freedom to perform religious duties, rituals, worship, ceremonies, and exhibit faith outwardly. In the Shirur Mutt case (1954), the Supreme Court held that protection extends only to 'Essential Religious Practices' that are core to the religion, rather than secular or superstitious activities associated with it.
- Right to Propagate: The freedom to disseminate and explain religious tenets and principles for the edification of others. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court clarified that this does not confer a fundamental right to convert others through coercion, fraud, or allurement, because doing so impinge on the conscience of the individual being converted.
Grounds of Restriction under Article 25
Under Article 25(1) and 25(2), religious freedom is subject to explicit statutory and constitutional grounds:
- Public Order: The state can curb religious activities that disrupt civic peace, communal harmony, or safety. For instance, in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association (2000), the Supreme Court held that the right to practise religion does not permit the use of loudspeakers at decibel levels that disturb the peace of neighbourhood residents.
- Morality: In constitutional jurisprudence, morality is defined as 'constitutional morality' rather than popular or majoritarian societal sentiments. In the Indian Young Lawyers Association case (Sabarimala, 2018), the exclusionary custom preventing the entry of women aged 10 to 50 was set aside as it violated constitutional morality and dignity.
- Health: Practices that endanger individual health or public safety are subject to restriction. This ground justifies the prohibition of practices like human sacrifice or female genital mutilation, as well as temporary restrictions placed on mass religious congregations and pilgrimages during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Other Provisions of Part III: Article 25 is uniquely subordinated to other Fundamental Rights. Thus, personal religious norms cannot violate equality before the law (Article 14) or personal liberty and dignity (Article 21). In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court struck down Instant Triple Talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat) as unconstitutional because it violated women's right to equality.
- Secular Regulation and Social Reform (Article 25(2)): The state retains the power to regulate economic, financial, political, or other secular activities associated with religious practice, and to provide for social welfare and reform, such as opening public Hindu temples to all castes and classes.
Conclusion
Article 25 strikes a delicate balance between personal spiritual autonomy and the collective interests of society. By subordinating religious freedom to public order, health, and constitutional morality, the Constitution prevents religion from superseding fundamental rights, reinforcing India's commitment to progressive social reform and democratic pluralism.