Freedom of religion and the rights of minorities: Articles 25-30

Detail

A. Overview: two groups of rights

• Freedom of religion (Arts. 25-28): four articles that protect a person's faith and a religious group's affairs. They also stop the State from favouring any one religion.

• All of them are subject to public order, morality and health. These are the grounds on which the State may limit a religious right.

• Cultural and educational rights (Arts. 29-30): two articles that protect the language, script and culture of groups. They also protect the right of minorities to run their own schools and colleges.

• Link to the Preamble: the word "secular" in the Preamble (added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976) means the State has no religion of its own and treats all religions equally (Class 7 NCERT). Arts. 25-28 put this idea into practice.
• Equality of all religions (Class 11 NCERT):
• India has no official religion.
• There is no religious test for holding public office.
• State institutions do not preach any religion.
• The theory behind this is covered in the note on secularism.

B. Article 25 — freedom of conscience and religion

• Text: "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].
• Who has the right: "all persons". Citizens and foreigners both have it.
• Freedom of conscience: the inner freedom to hold any belief. This includes believing in no religion (atheism).
• The three outward rights:
• Profess: openly declare your faith.
• Practise: perform rituals, worship and observances.

• Propagate: spread your beliefs by explaining them to others.

• Two kinds of limits:

• Public order, morality and health.
• The other provisions of Part III. For example, a religious practice cannot override Art. 17 (abolition of untouchability).

C. Article 25(2) — the State's power to regulate and reform

• State regulation of religious practice: Art. 25 does not stop the State from making laws on two things.
• Art. 25(2)(a): regulating any economic, financial, political or other secular (non-religious) activity linked to religion. An example is the management of temple money and land.

• Art. 25(2)(b): providing for social welfare and reform, and throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. This is the temple-entry clause.

• Reform laws upheld under this power (Class 11 NCERT): bans on sati, bigamy (having two spouses at once) and human sacrifice, and opening Hindu temples to all castes.

• Explanation I: wearing and carrying the kirpan (Sikh dagger) is part of the Sikh religion and is protected.
• Explanation II: in Art. 25(2)(b), "Hindus" includes Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. "Hindu religious institutions" is read in the same way.

D. Propagation, conversion and anti-conversion laws

• Right to propagate religion: the right to spread your beliefs by teaching and explaining them. It does not include a right to convert another person.

• Class 11 NCERT says the Constitution allows a person to spread information about their religion, but forcible conversion is not allowed.

• Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977): a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court.

• It upheld the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967 and the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968.
• Both Acts ban conversion by force, fraud or inducement.

• Reasoning: if one person converts another, the other person's freedom of conscience is harmed. Forced conversion also threatens public order, so states may make such laws.

• Anti-conversion laws: state laws, often called "Freedom of Religion Acts", that ban conversion by force, fraud, allurement (a bribe or gift) or undue influence.

• Spread: Odisha (1967), MP (1968), Arunachal Pradesh (1978), Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand (2018), Uttar Pradesh (2021), MP (2021), Karnataka (2022), Haryana (2022) and others [10][11][12].

• Newer features of these laws:

• Conversion by marriage: conversion "by promise of marriage" is unlawful. The UP Act, 2021 lets a Family Court declare void any marriage done only for unlawful conversion [12].
• Prior notice:
  • Uttarakhand Act, 2018: the convert must declare it to the District Magistrate one month in advance [11].
  • Karnataka Act, 2022: the convert gives a declaration (Form I) and the person conducting the conversion gives notice (Form II), each 30 days in advance to the DM or ADM [10].
• Rajasthan Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Bill, 2025 (introduced in February 2025) [7]:
  • It requires an advance declaration and notice to the DM.
  • Prison terms are 1-5 years for ordinary cases, 2-10 years where women, minors or SC/ST persons are converted, and 3-10 years for mass conversion.
  • A marriage done only for unlawful conversion is void.
  • The burden of proof is on the person who caused the conversion. This means that person must prove the conversion was lawful.
  • Re-converting to one's immediately previous religion is exempt.
  • Its later passage needs to be verified.

• Maharashtra: the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, 2026 requires 60 days' prior notice from both the convert and the organiser of the conversion ceremony [8]. It was enacted as Act No. 47 of 2026 [9].

• Constitutional tension:

• K.S. Puttaswamy (2017): privacy is a fundamental right, and it includes choices about faith and intimate life.
• Shafin Jahan (2018, Hadiya case): an adult's choice of partner and faith is part of Art. 21.
• Prior notice to officials and reversed burdens of proof may clash with these two rulings. Challenges to several state Acts are pending in the Supreme Court (verify current).

E. Article 26 — freedom to manage religious affairs

• Text: subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section of it has four rights [3]:
• (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;
• (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;
• (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property;

• (d) to administer such property in accordance with law.

• Religious denomination: a group with a common faith, a common organisation and a distinct name. This test comes from Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954).

• S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983): the Supreme Court held that the Auroville / Sri Aurobindo Society is not a religious denomination. It followed the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo, not a religion.

• Art. 26 compared with Art. 25:

• Art. 26 is a group right. Art. 25 is an individual right.
• Art. 26 is subject only to public order, morality and health, not to "other provisions of this Part".

• Even so, Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958) held that the denomination's right under Art. 26(b) gives way to Art. 25(2)(b). A denominational temple must therefore be opened to all Hindus. The denomination may keep only some ritual exclusions.

• Essential religious practices test: courts protect only practices that are essential (core) to a religion, not every custom.

• Shirur Mutt (1954): the religion itself decides what is essential.
• Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961): courts will decide whether a practice is essential. Superstitious or merely secular parts get no protection.

• Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994): offering namaz in a mosque is not an essential practice, unless that mosque has special significance. So the State may acquire mosque land.

• Sabarimala and the hijab case (details in the note on secularism):

• Indian Young Lawyers Association (2018): a 4:1 ruling ended the ban on women aged 10-50 entering the Sabarimala temple.
• On 10 February 2020, a nine-judge bench in Kantaru Rajeevaru agreed to hear wider questions on religious freedom and on how far courts may review essential religious practices [13].
• The nine-judge bench heard arguments in April-May 2026 [14]. The judgment is awaited (verify current).
• Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka (2022): the two judges disagreed (1:1) on the classroom hijab ban, so the case went to a larger bench.

F. Article 27 — freedom from taxes for promotion of religion

• Text: no person shall be compelled to pay any taxes whose proceeds are specifically appropriated (set aside) for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination [4].
• What it means: the State cannot use tax money to favour one religion.
• What it allows: a fee (a charge for a specific service, such as a fee collected for temple upkeep or pilgrim services) is allowed. A fee is a payment for a service, not a tax for promoting a religion.
• Correction: NCERT calls this the "freedom to pay taxes". This is wrong. The right is freedom from being forced to pay taxes for promoting a religion. (NCERT: "freedom to pay taxes")

G. Article 28 — freedom as to religious instruction

• Freedom as to religious instruction: the rule on whether religious teaching or worship may happen in schools. There are three types of institution [5]:

Type of institution	Rule on religious instruction
Wholly maintained out of State funds (Art. 28(1))	No religious instruction at all
Run by the State but set up under an endowment or trust that requires religious instruction (Art. 28(2))	Allowed. This is the exception to 28(1)
Recognised by the State or receiving State aid (Art. 28(3))	Allowed, but no one can be forced to attend without their consent (a guardian's consent for a minor)
Private, unaided and unrecognised	Not covered by Art. 28

• Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002): the Supreme Court upheld the NCFSE 2000 school curriculum framework. It held that studying the values and philosophy of different religions is not "religious instruction". So it does not break Art. 28.

H. Article 29 — protection of the interests of minorities

• Protection of interests of minorities: the heading of Art. 29. The text itself is wider than minorities.
• Art. 29(1): any section of citizens living anywhere in India with a distinct language, script or culture of its own has the right to conserve it [16].

• So it is not limited to minorities. A linguistic majority group can also use it.

• Art. 29(2): no citizen can be denied admission to an educational institution maintained by the State or receiving State aid on grounds only of religion, race, caste or language [16].

• Note: sex and place of birth are not in this list. Compare Art. 15(1).

• Class 11 NCERT cartoon: "Aren't we all minorities?" Each person belongs to a minority in some way, by language, region or faith, so protecting minorities protects everyone.

I. Article 30 — right of minorities to run educational institutions

• Art. 30(1): all minorities, whether based on religion or language, have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice [6].
• Only religious and linguistic minorities are covered. Cultural minorities are not.

• "Of their choice" means the institutions may teach any subject, not only religion or language.

• Art. 30(1A): added by the 44th Amendment, 1978. It was added when the right to property was removed from Part III.

• If the State compulsorily acquires property of a minority institution, the compensation must not restrict or destroy the right in Art. 30(1).

• Art. 30(2): the State shall not discriminate in giving aid to any institution because it is run by a religious or linguistic minority.

• Key case law:
• In re Kerala Education Bill (1958) and Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat (1974, nine judges):
  • The State may regulate minority institutions to keep up academic standards, discipline and good administration.
  • Such rules must not destroy their minority character.
• T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002, eleven judges) [15]:
  • Minority status is judged state by state. For state laws, a group is a minority if it is a minority in that state.
  • Unaided minority institutions have more autonomy than aided ones.
• P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005, seven judges) [15]:
  • The State cannot impose reservation quotas or its own admission policy on unaided minority and non-minority professional institutions.
  • The Court called Art. 30 a "protection" or "privilege" of minorities rather than an abstract right [15].
• National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) Act, 2004: the NCMEI decides disputes on minority-status certificates and advises on the rights of minority institutions.

• Aligarh Muslim University judgment (8 November 2024, seven judges, 4:3):

  • It overruled S. Azeez Basha (1967). An institution does not lose minority status just because it was set up by a statute.
  • Courts must ask who founded it and with what purpose.
  • AMU's own status was left to a regular bench [15].
  • Details are in the note on safeguards for vulnerable sections.

• Class 11 NCERT exercises:

• 3(d): Telugu-speaking people can run Telugu-medium schools outside Andhra Pradesh, because there they are a linguistic minority.
• 4: minority institutions may admit students from other communities. Admitting others does not end their minority character.

J. Constituent Assembly background

• Hukam Singh (26 May 1949) urged the majority to understand the fears of minorities. Class 11 NCERT quotes this as the reason minorities need special safeguards in a democracy where the majority makes the laws.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 25 covers "all persons", including foreigners. Arts. 29(1), 29(2) and 30 speak of "citizens" or "minorities", which are narrower groups.
• Explanation II to Art. 25: "Hindus" includes Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. Explanation I protects the kirpan.
• Rev. Stainislaus (1977): the right to propagate does not include a right to convert. It upheld the Orissa Act, 1967 and the MP Act, 1968.
• Art. 27 bars taxes spent on promoting a religion, but fees are allowed. Trap: NCERT's "freedom to pay taxes" is the wrong wording.
• Art. 28(1): no religious instruction in wholly State-funded institutions. Art. 28(3): it is optional, with consent, in aided or recognised institutions.
• Art. 29(1) protects any section of citizens, not only minorities. Art. 29(2) leaves out sex and place of birth.
• Art. 30(1A) (compensation when a minority institution's property is acquired) was added by the 44th Amendment, 1978.
• Case and principle pairs:
• Shirur Mutt (1954): religious denomination test.
• S.P. Mittal (1983): Auroville is not a denomination.
• Sri Venkataramana Devaru (1958): Art. 25(2)(b) prevails over Art. 26(b).
• T.M.A. Pai (2002): minority status is decided state-wise.
• P.A. Inamdar (2005): no imposed quotas in unaided institutions.

• AMU (2024): Azeez Basha (1967) overruled.

• Sabarimala review: referred to a nine-judge bench on 10 February 2020 [13]. Hearings were held in April 2026 [14].

Mains Points

• Freedom to convert vs. protection from coercion:
• Rev. Stainislaus (1977) gave states room to ban forced conversion.
• Newer Acts add 30-60 days' prior notice, void "conversion marriages" and reverse the burden of proof [7][8][10][12].

• Critics say this hurts privacy (Puttaswamy, 2017) and adult choice (Shafin Jahan, 2018). Supporters point to fraud and public order.

• Who defines religion?

• The essential religious practices test (Durgah Committee 1961 → Ismail Faruqui 1994 → Sabarimala 2018) makes judges decide theology.

• The nine-judge reference [13][14] could change this test into a test of constitutional morality, or leave decisions more to the community.

• Autonomy vs. regulation of minority institutions:

• St. Xavier's (1974), T.M.A. Pai (2002) and P.A. Inamdar (2005) allow rules for standards but not a takeover.

• State-wise minority status protects groups such as Hindus in states where they are a minority. Debate continues on misuse of minority status by commercial colleges.

• Majority-minority trust: Hukam Singh's 1949 plea and the "Aren't we all minorities?" idea support Arts. 29-30 as building blocks of nation-building, not appeasement. Art. 29(1) is open to every group, which supports this reading.