Dalvoy Logo
Dalvoy
UPSC MainsGeneral Studies Paper IIConstitutionPractice question

Reasonable Restrictions on Freedom of Religion

Freedom of religion under the Indian Constitution is not absolute; discuss with reference to Articles 25-28.

discuss~250 words3 min readmedium
Attempt it first, timed · optional

Write the answer on paper, as in the exam. Start the timer, keep to the word target.

00:00/ 11 min · 250 words

Done writing? Photograph the sheet and see how it scores against this model answer, with feedback on what to fix.

Upload your answer sheet

How to approach

Introduce the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom under Articles 25 to 28 and highlight that these rights are conditional. In the body, systematically discuss the constitutional and judicial limitations across Articles 25, 26, 27, and 28, incorporating landmark judgments and doctrinal tests. Conclude by summarizing India's model of secularism rooted in principled distance and constitutional morality.

Model answer

459 words

Introduction

Articles 25 to 28 of the Indian Constitution guarantee freedom of religion, reflecting the nation's commitment to secularism and pluralism. However, unlike absolute liberties, these provisions are intentionally qualified to balance individual conscience and community practices with social harmony, public welfare, and fundamental human rights.

Constitutional Limitations under Articles 25 and 26

The Constitution explicitly circumscribes religious freedoms through specific internal qualifiers and state regulatory powers:

  • Public Order, Morality, and Health: Under Articles 25(1) and 26, the exercise of religious freedom and the right of religious denominations to manage their affairs are directly subject to public order, morality, and health. The State retains the authority to restrict public gatherings, processions, or harmful practices during epidemics or civil unrest.
  • Subservience to Other Fundamental Rights: Article 25(1) is explicitly subject to the other provisions of Part III. In the Indian Young Lawyers Association Case (Sabarimala Judgment, 2018), the Supreme Court ruled that exclusionary customs cannot override the fundamental guarantees of equality (Article 14) and non-discrimination (Article 15).
  • Social Welfare and Reform: Article 25(2)(b) empowers the State to enact laws providing for social welfare and reform, specifically throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of society, thereby invalidating caste-based exclusions.
  • Regulation of Secular Activities: Under Article 25(2)(a), the State may regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political, or other secular activity associated with religious practice.

Judicial Interpretations and State Neutrality (Articles 27 and 28)

The judiciary has developed crucial doctrines to determine the boundaries of religious autonomy, while Articles 27 and 28 enforce institutional secularism:

  • Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine: First articulated in the Shirur Mutt Case (1954), this doctrine establishes that constitutional immunity covers only integral, foundational practices of a religion. Secular or superstitious accretions do not enjoy constitutional protection.
  • No Right to Forcible Conversion: In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Supreme Court held that the right to 'propagate' religion under Article 25 does not grant a fundamental right to convert another person, safeguarding individual freedom of conscience against fraud, coercion, or allurement.
  • Freedom from Compulsory Religious Taxation (Article 27): Article 27 bars the State from compelling any citizen to pay taxes specifically earmarked for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion, ensuring financial neutrality.
  • Prohibition of Religious Instruction (Article 28): Article 28 prohibits religious instruction in educational institutions wholly maintained out of State funds, maintaining strict separation between state education and confessional indoctrination.

Conclusion

The constitutional framework under Articles 25 to 28 demonstrates that Indian secularism does not mandate rigid separation of church and state, but operates on a principle of 'principled distance'. By subjecting religious freedom to public welfare, social reform, and human dignity, the Constitution ensures that religious rights remain subordinate to constitutional morality.

Key facts to remember

case study
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (Shirur Mutt Case, 1954)

The Supreme Court formulated the 'Essential Religious Practices' doctrine, ruling that what constitutes an integral part of a religion is determined with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself, distinguishing core religious tenets from secular management.

case study
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977)

The Supreme Court clarified that the right to 'propagate' under Article 25 grants the right to transmit or spread one's religion through exposition, but does not encompass the right to forcibly or fraudulently convert another citizen.

definition
Principled Distance

A hallmark of Indian secularism wherein the State neither strictly separates itself from religion nor favours one faith, but intervenes or abstains based on constitutional values of equality, liberty, and social reform.

Frequently asked questions

Why is Article 25 subject to Part III while Article 26 is not explicitly so worded?

Article 25 explicitly conditions individual religious freedom on 'other provisions of Part III'. Although Article 26 omitted this specific phrase, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that denominational rights under Article 26 must still harmonize with core constitutional values like human dignity and gender equality.

← All questions on this topic (64)