Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28)

Introduction

The Indian Constitution guarantees to every person in India the liberty to follow, practise and propagate their religion, while at the same time safeguarding the secular character of the State. The cluster of provisions in Articles 25 to 28 constitute the “Right to Freedom of Religion” in Part III of the Constitution. These rights enable individuals and religious bodies to exercise their faith, preserve autonomy in religious affairs, and protect themselves from state‐imposed religious instruction. At the same time, these rights are subject to important caveats — public order, morality, health and other fundamental rights intervene when necessary.

In this blog, we revisit each of these Articles (25-28) in turn, and then examine recent interpretations of the courts (2020-24) dealing with forced conversions, hijab restrictions in educational institutions and temple entry/denominational autonomy issues. The objective is to complement the textbook explanation in Indian Government and Politics and provide up-to-date jurisprudence for students pursuing Political Science (Major/Minor) under the NEP syllabus.

Article 25: Freedom of Conscience and the Right to Profess, Practise and Propagate Religion

Text of Article 25(1):

“All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.”

Key terms and meaning:

• Freedom of Conscience – the inner freedom of an individual to believe in any faith, or not to believe in any.

• Right to Profess – the right to openly declare and express one’s religious beliefs and faith.

• Right to Practise – the right to perform religious worship, rituals, ceremonies, customarily associated with one’s faith.

• Right to Propagate – the right to spread or communicate one’s religious beliefs to others. However — the courts have clarified that this does not include the right to forcibly convert others by coercion, fraud or undue inducement.

Scope & limitations:

• Article 25 protects both religious beliefs (dogma/faith) and religious practices (rituals/customs).

• These rights are not absolute. They are subject to public order, morality and health (see Article 25(1) second proviso).

• The State may regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political or secular activities which are associated with religious practice (Article 25(2)(a)).

• The State may also enact laws for social welfare or reform, even in relation to religious practices – e.g., opening Hindu temples to all castes and classes (Article 25(2)(b)).

• An important explanatory note: for the purpose of Article 25, the term “Hindus” has been interpreted to include Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists.

State’s power to regulate:
For instance:

• The State can regulate temple finances, ensure secular activities related to religion are brought under regulation.

• The State may intervene in practices which are incompatible with public order, morality, health or other fundamental rights.

Article 26: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs

Article 26 grants to every “religious denomination or any section thereof” the collective right to:

• Establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes;

• Manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

• Own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

• Administer such property in accordance with law.

These rights too are subject to the limitations of public order, morality and health.

Who is a “religious denomination”? The courts have held that such a body must (a) have a common faith or belief guiding its spiritual life, (b) have a common organisation, and (c) be known by a distinctive name. Example: the Ramakrishna Mission and the Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha have been held to be religious denominations under Hinduism; whereas the Aurobindo Society was held not to be one.

Article 27: Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of Religion

Article 27 states:

“No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.”

This provision ensures that the State cannot use public funds (raised by taxes) to support or promote one religion or denomination over another. It does not mean that religious institutions cannot receive general benefit from public funds (e.g., renovation of temples or infrastructural support), but direct promotion of a particular religion by forcing taxes is prohibited.

Article 28: Freedom from Attending Religious Instruction or Worship

Article 28 protects individuals from being compelled to attend religious instruction or worship in institutions maintained wholly by the State. Breakdown:

• (1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained by the State.

• (2) Persons cannot be required to attend religious instruction in an institution recognized by the State or receiving aid from the State, if they do not wish to do so.

• (3) This prohibition does not apply to institutions administered by the State, but established under a trust or endowment requiring religious instruction.

Thus the right ensures autonomy of citizens in educational contexts with respect to religious instruction.

Summary Table:

Essence of the Right to Freedom of Religion

• The Indian State guarantees freedom of religion to all individuals and groups.

• The secular ethos means that the State has no religion of its own and treats all religions equally.

• The rights protect both individual freedom of faith (Article 25) and group autonomy of religious communities (Articles 26-28).

• They promote religious harmony by separating religion from State domination, but also by keeping religion within the rule of law so that it does not infringe on other rights or public interest.

Recent Developments (2020-24): Key Interpretations and Trends

To complement the textbook discussion in Shukla’s book, we review some significant recent Supreme Court observations and emerging issues in the domain of religious freedom. These reflect evolving constitutional practice and will be helpful for students analysing current polity.

Forced Conversions / Anti-Conversion Laws

• The Supreme Court has observed that while the Constitution does not prohibit religious conversion per se, it will not accept forced conversions. In one remark the Court termed forced conversions “dangerous” and a threat to national security. 

• In November 2022 the Court stated that “the issue of forced conversions has been brought into fresh focus”.

• In a very recent decision (2024/2025) the Court quashed several FIRs under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act 2021, observing that law enforcement should not become a tool for harassment. 

• The legal landscape of anti-conversion laws is under scrutiny. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has noted ongoing petitions in the Supreme Court on state-level anti‐conversion laws (e.g., in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand). 
  Implication for Article 25:
  These developments reinforce that the right to propagate religion does not include coercive conversion by force, fraud or allurement, since that would violate the freedom of conscience of the person being converted. The courts emphasize that any conversion must be genuinely voluntary. The State may enact and enforce legislation to prevent such coercive practices, especially when public order is at risk.

Hijab Restrictions in Educational Institutions

• In October 2022, a two‐judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on constitutional challenges to a ban on hijab in some educational institutions in the State of Karnataka. 

• The Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice with a view to constituting a larger bench.
  Key takeaways:

  • One judge held that asking a schoolgirl to remove the hijab was an invasion of her privacy and dignity, violative of Articles 21 and 19(1)(a). 

  • The other judge upheld the uniform/dress code policy of the institution, reasoning that the wearing of the hijab was not shown to be an essential religious practice of Islam in that context. 
    Implication for Article 25/26:
    This evolving jurisprudence illustrates the interplay between freedom of religion (and associated rights of religious minorities in educational settings) and other constitutional interests — uniform policy, institutional discipline, gender equality, dignity and privacy. The fact that the Court has not decisively ruled means that the issue remains live. Students studying Indian government & politics must pay attention to the “essential religious practice test” and how it applies in varying contexts.

Temple Entry / Denominational Autonomy & Equality

• While the landmark judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018) dealt with women’s entry into the Sabarimala Temple, subsequent developments continue to show the tension between denominational rights (Article 26), reform power (Article 25(2)(b)) and equality. 

• More recently, although not a full Supreme Court decision, the High Court of Kerala directed temple boards to ensure disabled‐friendly access, observing that persons with disabilities have equal religious rights under Article 25. 

• Also, the ongoing case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India challenges the constitutionality of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (PW Act) which relates to maintaining the religious character of places of worship as of 15 August 1947. As of mid-2024, the Court has referred the pleas to a smaller bench and has signalled it will only entertain new legal grounds. 
  Implication for Articles 26/25:
  These developments highlight the ongoing balancing act — the right of a religious denomination to administer its affairs (Article 26) may be subject to constitutional equality and reform obligations (Article 25(2)(b)). Also, the State’s regulatory power over religious places (including via legislation like the PW Act) remains subject to scrutiny under basic‐structure doctrines. Students should note how denominational rights and social reform objectives are negotiated in jurisprudence.

Why These Developments Matter for Students

• They provide contemporary context to textbook concepts: rights under Articles 25-28 are not static; they evolve through judicial interpretation.

• They illustrate tensions inherent in religious freedom: between individual autonomy and community rights; between religious freedom and other constitutional values such as equality, dignity, public order.

• They exemplify how secularism as a constitutional principle is operationalised in Indian jurisdiction — the State does not favour a religion, yet it must regulate religious practices when necessary.

• They help in exam preparation: Most university syllabi under NEP require students not only to know the Articles but also to discuss recent judicial trends and current challenges (forced conversions, hijab controversies, temple reform, denominational rights).

• They demonstrate that the textbook (Indian Government and Politics by Dr. Shukla) remains relevant, and supplements like this blog help keep one updated.

Conclusion

The Right to Freedom of Religion under Articles 25-28 is foundational to India’s constitutional architecture: it guarantees religious liberty, group autonomy and state neutrality. At the same time, the rights are subject to regulation in the interest of public order, equality, morality and health. The recent jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and High Courts (2020-24) on forced conversions, hijab bans, temple entry and denominational autonomy underscores the dynamic nature of this field.

As you study Indian Government and Politics by Dr. Haridwar Shukla, you will find the textbook lays out the conceptual structure clearly. Use this blog as a companion to link those concepts with current constitutional practice, enriching both understanding and critical analysis. Whether for Major or Minor courses under the FYUGP NEP syllabus, this dual approach of theory + recent case law will strengthen your grasp of polity.