Article 25 in Constitution of India

25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

(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.

(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 maybe 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.

Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.Editorial Comment - Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of religion. It encompasses various aspects related to the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion. The freedom of religion under this article is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of public order, morality, and health. This means that while individuals have the right to practice their religion, it should not disrupt the harmony of society or infringe upon the well-being of others.

Article 25 distinguishes between religious practices and secular activities associated with religious institutions. The state has the authority to regulate or restrict secular activities that may be associated with religious practices, such as social reforms, economic activities, and other activities unrelated to the core aspects of religion. It also includes the right of religious denominations or any section thereof to manage their own religious affairs, including establishing and maintaining religious institutions, as long as they do not violate any other laws or public order.

In the case of Vaishno Devi Shrine, Board v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1997, In this case, the validity of Jammu and Kashmir Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988 was challenged. This act was made for better management and governance of the temple. This act was challenged based on a violation of the Fundamental right of Religion of the petitioner. It abolished the hereditary post of the priests and gave the power to the state to make the appointment of priests. The Supreme Court held that the service of a priest is a secular activity and it can be regulated by the state under clause 2 of Article 25.

In the case, Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of religious freedom and held that the freedom to manage religious affairs includes the right to determine the essential practices of a religious denomination. The court emphasized that the state should not interfere in matters of religious faith unless such practices are considered immoral or contrary to public order.

In the case, Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954), Supreme Court dealt with the power of the state to intervene in the administration of religious institutions. The Supreme Court held that while the state can regulate and supervise the administration of religious institutions, it should not interfere with the essential religious practices and customs of a denomination unless they are deemed to be socially harmful or against public order.

In the case of Acharya Jadishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, 1984 (Anand Marga Case), the Supreme Court held that the Tandava dance which is followed by the community of Anand Marga is not an essential part of the religion. So an order can be passed for the prohibition of Tandava dance in public and it will not violate Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.

In the case of Moulana Mufti Sayeed Mohd. Norrur Rehman Barkariq v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1999, the High Court said that the restriction imposed by the state on the use of Microphones and loudspeakers at the time of Azaan is not against the Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.

In the case, Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India, the Supreme Court dealt with the question of showing respect to the national anthem. The Supreme Court held that every citizen or persons are bound to show respect to the National Anthem of India, whenever played or sung on specific occasions the only exemption is granted to disabled people. It further held that playing of the national anthem in cinema halls is not mandatory but optional and directory.

In the case, Shayara Bano v. Union of India (Triple Talaq case), a 5 judges bench of the Supreme Court discussed whether the practice of Talaq-e-biddat (triple talaq) is a matter of faith to the Muslims and whether it is constituent to their personal law. By a 3:2 majority, the court ruled that the practice of Talaq-e-biddat is illegal and unconstitutional. The court also held that an injunction would continue to bar the Muslim male from practicing triple talaq till a legislation is enacted for that purpose.ReferencesIndianKanoon ConstitutionofIndia.net Blog Ipleaders Wikipedia