Article 25 of the indian constitution

Article 25: The Heart of India’s Secularism and Individual Religious Freedom

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution is the cornerstone of religious freedom in India, guaranteeing to every individual the liberty to hold and manifest their spiritual beliefs.

It embodies the positive aspect of Indian secularism, which does not demand a strict separation of state and religion, but rather mandates equal respect for all faiths. This provision protects the intimate and personal relationship an individual shares with their conscience while balancing this freedom with the broader interests of society and the state’s power to enact social reforms.² Its interpretation by the judiciary has led to a complex and evolving jurisprudence on what constitutes the core of religion and where the state can legitimately intervene.³

The Four-Fold Freedom: A Clause-by-Clause Analysis

Article 25(1) grants to “all persons” – not just citizens – four specific, yet interconnected, freedoms.⁴ It states:

“(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, practice and propagate religion.”⁵

The four key freedoms are:

1. Freedom of Conscience: This is the absolute inner freedom of an individual to mould their relationship with God or a higher power in whatever way they desire. It is a private matter concerning one’s thoughts and beliefs, free from any state coercion.
2. Right to Profess: This means the right to declare one’s religious beliefs and faith openly and freely.⁶ It is the verbal manifestation of one’s inner conscience.
3. Right to Practice: This refers to the performance of religious worship, rituals, ceremonies, and the exhibition of one’s beliefs. It is the practical and observable aspect of religion, such as offering prayers, wearing specific attire, or observing dietary rules.
4. Right to Propagate: This is the right to transmit and disseminate one’s religious beliefs to others or to explain the tenets of one’s religion.⁷ However, the Supreme Court has clarified that this does not include a fundamental right to convert another person, especially through force, fraud, or allurement.⁸ The right to propagate is about persuasion and exposition, not coercion, as that would impinge upon the “freedom of conscience” of the other person.

The Constitutional Limits: Balancing Freedom with Social Order

The freedoms guaranteed under Article 25(1) are not absolute. The Constitution itself imposes clear limitations:

• Public Order, Morality, and Health: The state can restrict religious practices that disrupt public peace, are grossly immoral, or are detrimental to public health. For example, the use of loudspeakers for religious purposes can be regulated to prevent noise pollution (health and public order), and practices deemed pernicious, like ‘Sati’, are prohibited on grounds of morality.
• Other Provisions of Part III: This means that the right to freedom of religion cannot be exercised in a way that violates other fundamental rights, such as the right to equality (Article 14).

The State’s Power to Regulate and Reform: Clause (2)

Article 25(2) carves out two significant areas where the state retains the power to legislate, even if it touches upon religious practices:¹⁰

• Regulation of Secular Activities [25(2)(a)]: The state can regulate or restrict any “economic, financial, political or other secular activity” which may be associated with religious practice.¹¹ For instance, the administration of a temple’s properties or finances is a secular activity that the state can regulate through law, even though the temple itself is a religious institution.¹²

   

• Social Welfare and Reform [25(2)(b)]: This is a crucial provision that empowers the state to enact laws for social welfare and reform. A key aspect of this is the power to throw open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. (Explanation II clarifies that “Hindus” in this context includes persons professing the Sikh, Jaina, or Buddhist religions).¹³ This clause was instrumental in dismantling caste-based discrimination in temple entry.¹⁴

   

The “Essential Religious Practices” Test: A Judicial Innovation

A significant challenge in interpreting Article 25 has been distinguishing between practices that are truly integral to a religion and those that are secular or non-essential. To address this, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shri Shirur Mutt (1954), developed the “Essential Religious Practices” (ERP) test.¹⁵

According to this doctrine, the protection of Article 25 is limited to practices that are “essential” and “integral” to a religion. The judiciary, not the religious denomination, takes on the role of determining what constitutes an essential practice, usually by examining the doctrines and foundational texts of that religion. Practices deemed non-essential or superstitious accretions can be regulated by the state.

This test has been applied in numerous contentious cases:

• In the Sabarimala Temple Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018), the majority held that the exclusion of women of menstruating age was not an essential religious practice and violated their fundamental right to worship under Article 25.¹⁶
• In the Karnataka Hijab Case (Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka, 2022), the High Court ruled that wearing the hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam and upheld the state’s power to prescribe a uniform in educational institutions.¹⁷ The Supreme Court later delivered a split verdict on the appeal, and the matter is pending before a larger bench.

Contemporary Relevance and Challenges

Article 25 remains at the center of many contemporary legal and social debates in India. Issues such as the enactment of anti-conversion laws by several states, which are challenged as infringing on the right to propagate religion, and the ongoing disputes over religious attire in public institutions, continue to test the boundaries of this fundamental right.

Conclusion: A Dynamic Charter of Religious Liberty

Article 25 is a testament to the Indian constitutional vision of a pluralistic and tolerant society. It robustly protects an individual’s right to inner belief and outward manifestation while empowering the state to act as a progressive social reformer. The ongoing judicial engagement with this article, particularly through the “Essential Religious Practices” test, highlights the continuous and delicate process of balancing individual freedom, community identity, and the overarching constitutional goals of equality and social justice. It remains the primary constitutional provision that defines the contours of religious liberty for every person in India.