India's approach to regulating religious institutions reflects inherent tensions between Article 25–28 freedoms and the state's socio-economic obligations under Article 21. Discuss.

Q. India's approach to regulating religious institutions reflects inherent tensions between Article 25–28 freedoms and the state's socio-economic obligations under Article 21. Discuss. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion, yet Article 25(2)(a) expressly permits the State to regulate any "economic, financial, political or other secular activity" associated with religious practice [1]. India's regulation of temples sits on this fault line — autonomy in faith, state responsibility in welfare.

Constitutional space for state regulation - Commissioner, HRE Madras v. Shirur Mutt (1954) drew the religious–secular distinction: essential religious practice is protected, but management of endowments is regulable [2]. - Religious endowments are a State subject (Entry 28, List II), enabling laws such as the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959 [1]. - The scale is vast: Tamil Nadu's HR&CE Department administers tens of thousands of temples along with their revenues and staff appointments [3].

Article 21 obligations that deepen state involvement - Right to livelihood is part of Article 21 (Olga Tellis, 1985) [4]; once the State assumes financial control of a temple, an employer–employee relationship is argued to arise. - A 2026 PIL accordingly sought a declaration that priests and sevadars are 'employees' under Section 2(k), Code on Wages, 2019 [5][6], a Code that universalised minimum wages across organised and unorganised sectors [7].

Where the tensions surface - Autonomy versus control: Article 26 grants denominations the right to manage religious affairs, which comprehensive state boards inevitably thin out. - Control without correlative duty: the State draws endowment revenue while temple staff often remain outside statutory wage protection — an Article 14 concern relative to other religious-endowment employees. - Federal gap: wages flow from a central Code, temples from state departments; the Supreme Court declined the PIL as not maintainable under Article 32, directing petitioners to appropriate forums [6].

This tension is less a defect than a design — the Constitution shields belief while subjecting its secular apparatus to welfare duties. The balanced path lies in states extending minimum-wage and social-security norms to temple staff through HR&CE rules, so that stewardship of religious institutions upholds both freedom of religion and the dignity of labour promised by Article 21.

(~315 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution of India — Ministry of Law and Justice — Articles 21, 25(2)(a), 26; Entry 28, List II, Seventh Schedule 2. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) — Digital Supreme Court Reports — religious practice versus secular management distinction 3. Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu — scale of state administration of temples and staff 4. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) — Digital Supreme Court Reports — right to livelihood as part of Article 21 5. The Code on Wages, 2019 (Act No. 29 of 2019) — India Code — definition of 'employee' under Section 2(k) 6. PIL plea in SC seeks review of wages of priests, temple staff — The Hindu, 11 May 2026 — PIL contents and the Court's refusal to entertain it under Article 32 7. The Code on Wages, 2019 — PRS Legislative Research — consolidation of four wage laws; coverage of organised and unorganised sectors