Article 26 of the indian constitution

Article 26: The Constitutional Guarantee of Collective Religious Freedom

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution stands as a crucial pillar supporting the nation’s secular framework, complementing the individual religious freedoms guaranteed under Article 25. While Article 25 protects the personal right of an individual to profess, practice, and propagate their faith, Article 26 addresses the collective rights of organized religious groups. It guarantees religious denominations the autonomy to manage their own affairs, thereby protecting the institutional character of religion and ensuring that faith communities can function freely without undue state interference.

The Four-Fold Right to Autonomy

Article 26 grants to every “religious denomination or any section thereof” four specific rights, subject to the overarching limitations of public order, morality, and health.⁴ These rights are:

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

This clause secures the right of a religious group to create and sustain its own places of worship, educational institutions, hospitals, and other charitable organizations in furtherance of its religious and community goals.5

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

This is the core of the article’s guarantee of autonomy. It gives a religious denomination the right to decide on its own doctrines, tenets, and internal governance. The State cannot interfere in what the denomination determines to be its core religious affairs, such as deciding who its spiritual leaders will be or what rituals are essential to its faith.

(c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and

This clause recognizes the practical necessity for religious institutions to own property, such as land, buildings, and funds, to carry out their functions.6

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

This is a critical qualifying clause. While a denomination has the right to own property, its administration of that property is not absolute. It must be done “in accordance with law.” This means the State can enact secular laws to regulate the administration of religious properties to ensure they are managed properly and to prevent maladministration, but it cannot take away the right of administration itself.

Defining a “Religious Denomination”: The Judicial Test

The protection of Article 26 is available only to a “religious denomination.” The Constitution does not define this term, so its meaning has been shaped by the Supreme Court.⁷ In the landmark case of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shri Shirur Mutt (1954), the Court laid down a three-part test. A “religious denomination” must have:

1. A common faith: A collection of individuals who share a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being.
2. A common organization: A structured body or institutional framework.
3. A distinct name: A specific name by which the group is known.

Under this test, various sects and sub-sects of Hinduism, like the Ramakrishna Mission and Ananda Marga, have been recognized as religious denominations.⁸ However, the followers of the Aurobindo Society were held not to be a religious denomination because their philosophy was seen as a cultural and educational pursuit rather than a distinct religion.

The Crucial Distinction: “Matters of Religion” vs. Secular Activities

The most significant area of judicial interpretation under Article 26 has been distinguishing between purely religious affairs and secular activities associated with religion.

• Matters of Religion [Clause (b)]: The courts have held that the denomination has complete autonomy in deciding what rites and ceremonies are essential to its religion. This includes determining the doctrines, tenets, and practices that are fundamental to the faith.
• Secular Activities [Clause (d)]: The administration of property, however, has been largely interpreted as a secular activity.⁹ In the influential case of Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the protection of Article 26(d) does not extend to secular activities or to practices that, though religious, are founded on superstition and are not essential to the religion.¹⁰

This distinction allows the state to enact laws to ensure that the properties of religious institutions are not mismanaged. For example, state governments have passed laws to regulate the financial administration of major temples and trusts to ensure transparency and accountability, an action permissible under Article 26(d).¹¹

The Interplay with Article 25 and Contemporary Challenges

Article 26 (collective rights) is intrinsically linked with Article 25 (individual rights). A conflict can arise when a denomination’s right to manage its own affairs under Article 26 clashes with an individual’s right to worship under Article 25.

This tension was at the heart of the landmark Sabarimala Temple Case (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018). The temple’s trust claimed a denominational right under Article 26 to manage its affairs, which included the custom of excluding women of a certain age.¹² However, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion held that this practice, even if claimed as a right by the denomination, violated the fundamental right to equality (Article 14) and the individual right to freedom of religion (Article 25) of women. The Court ruled that the denominational right could not be used to perpetuate a practice that was discriminatory and violative of other fundamental rights.

Conclusion: A Charter for Institutional Religious Autonomy

Article 26 is a vital constitutional provision that upholds the principle of religious pluralism by granting autonomy to faith communities.¹³ It ensures that religious denominations can maintain their institutional integrity and manage their core spiritual affairs without unwarranted state intrusion.¹⁴ At the same time, by subjecting the administration of property to secular law and by being subordinate to public order, morality, and health, the article creates a framework where religious autonomy co-exists with the state’s legitimate interests in social welfare and financial propriety. The ongoing judicial engagement with Article 26 continues to refine the delicate balance between the collective freedom of religious groups and the broader constitutional commitment to individual rights and social reform.