- Article 28 (1) ensures that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds.
- Article 28 (2) this provision shall not apply to an educational institution administered by the State but established under any endowment or trust, requiring imparting of religious instruction in such institution.
- Article 28 (3) ensures that no person attending any educational institution recognised by the state or receiving aid out of State funds shall be required to attend any religious guidance or veneration in that establishment without his consent. In the case of a minor, the consent of his guardian is needed.
Article 28 categorizes educational institutions into four distinct types:
| Type of Institute | Status of religious instruction |
| Organizations entirely funded by the government | Teaching religion is completely prohibited |
| Organizations overseen by the State that were established through various endowments or trusts | Teaching about religion is allowed |
| Entities acknowledged by the State | Religious instruction is permitted on a voluntary basis. |
| Organizations obtaining support from the government | Religious instruction is permitted as long as it is done voluntarily |
Important Judgements
Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Importance:
In this instance, the Supreme Court determined that the essential right to practice and promote religion does not encompass the right to convert others.
Background:
Reverend Stanislaus of Raipur challenged the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Act as it refused to register conversions. Similarly, the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act was challenged in the Orissa High Court. In the case it was held by the High court that the definition of the word ‘inducement’ was too broad and only the Parliament has the right to enact such legislations and state legislature should not have such rights. The Supreme court heard both these cases together and gave its judgment upholding the validity of both these acts.
Judgment:
The court determined that the right to spread one’s beliefs does not include the right to convert someone else to one’s own faith. This right allows for transmission or spreading of one’s religion by comprehensively explaining and describing its tenets. It was held that provisions of Article 25 (1) apply to every citizen and not only one particular religion. It was held that if a person purposely undertook conversion of a person to his religion this would impinge on the ‘freedom of conscience’ guaranteed to all citizens of the country.
Shirur Mutt Case
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (Popularly known as the ‘’Shirur Mutt case””)
Importance:
The term ‘religious denomination’ was first defined in this case. Besides this the court gave the ‘essential religious doctrine”.
Background:
Shirur Mutt is a Hindu monastery and one of the Ashta mathas located in Udupi. The Ashta mathas of Udupi comprise eight Hindu monasteries that were founded by Shri Madhavacharya. These mathas are led by swamis on a rotating basis, making them collectively responsible for the administration of Shrirur Mutt. A ceremony called ‘Pariyayam’ is held every other year at Sri Krishna Matha in Udupi. The duties of puja and management of Krishna Matha are shared among the Swamijis of the Ashta Mathas. Each Swamiji from the various mathas is given the opportunity to conduct puja for Udupi Sri Krishna in rotation, serving a term of two years. Lakshmindra Thirtha Swaminar was appointed as the Swami of Shirur Math, overseeing the ceremonies in 1931 and 1946. He accrued significant debt due to the costs associated with these ceremonies. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 allowed government officials to take certain measures if there were suspicions of financial mismanagement within a public religious institution. This Act established a Madras Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments. Acting on the powers granted by the act, the commissioner began addressing the debt situation upon suspecting mismanagement of the Matha. Conflicts emerged between the swami and the agent, as the agent frequently disregarded the swami’s authority. Consequently, Swami Lakshmindra Thirtha Swaminar lodged a petition with the high court, and ultimately, the case was escalated to the Supreme Court.
Judgment:
The court ruled the case in favour of Swami Lakshmindra Thirtha Swaminar. The Judgment had two important outcomes, first it gave the definition of ‘religious denomination’ (discussed above) and came up with essential religious doctrine.
Essential Religious Practices Under the Indian Constitution
Definition: Essential religious practices are those practices that are core to a religion, and failing to observe them would lead to a fundamental change in the religion.
- Objective: To determine which practices are safeguarded under Article 25 of the Constitution and which practices the state has the authority to regulate. It was concluded that only those practices that are crucial to the religion would receive protection under Articles 25 and 26, specifically those whose absence would threaten the integrity of the religion.
- Determining ‘essential religious practice’: The decision as to what constitutes an essential religious practice or not is taken by the court itself. The court utilises the doctrines of religion to determine if a practice is an essential or not.
This doctrine has been utilised by the court in its various Judgments
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb vs the State of Bombay, 1962
A five-judge upheld the right and power of the head priest of the Dawoodi Bohra community to excommunicate members.
Acharya Jagdishwaranand (Tandava Dance), 2004
The Supreme Court determined that the Tandava dance is not a fundamental religious practice within the Ananda Marga faith..
Shayara Bano vs Union of India, 2017
In the case, the court struck down the practice of Triple Talaq and rejected the idea that it was an essential practice under Islam. The Court ruled that it contravened the core principles of the Quran and was therefore in violation of the Shariat. Consequently, it was not deemed an essential practice and could not receive constitutional protection under Article 25.
Sabarimala case
Background:
Women of menstruating age (specifically those aged between 10 and 50) were barred from entering the Sabarimala Temple. In 2006, the Indian Young Lawyers Association submitted a public interest litigation petition to the Supreme Court contesting the prohibition. Some key questions raised in this case included –
- Did the restriction on entry for menstruating women into the Sabarimala Temple infringe upon the Right to Equality (Article 14), the Right against discrimination (Article 15), and the abolition of untouchability (Article 17)?
- Are the devotees of Lord Ayyappa considered a distinct religious denomination?
- Is the exclusion of women from an ‘essential religious practice’ under Article 25 justified?
- The validity of Rule 3 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorization of Entry), which prohibits the entry of women aged 10 to 50, was questioned.
Judgment:
The prohibition was rescinded, and the Sabarimala Temple was opened to women within the age group of 10 to 50. The court’s ruling was based on the following reasoning –
- The Sabarimala exclusion of women was found to infringe upon the fundamental rights of women (aged 10 to 50), particularly as it was discriminatory under Article 15. Additionally, it was determined that the concept of untouchability encompasses social exclusion based on the notion of purity.
- It was concluded that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not meet the criteria to be recognized as a separate religious denomination.
- Regarding the question of essential religious practice, it was held that Ayyappans are Hindus, and the practice of excluding women cannot be classified as an essential religious practice.
- It was ruled that Rule 3 (b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship is unconstitutional as it permits public Hindu places of worship to exclude women based on customs.
The five-judge constitution bench’s ruling in the Sabarimala case faced challenges from over fifty petitioners. The Supreme Court has agreed to reassess its decision regarding the Sabarimala case and has sent it to a larger constitutional bench. However, as of March 2023, the review of the decision remains pending in the Supreme Court.
Hijab Issue: Legal Challenges and Split Verdict
A petition was presented in the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the prohibition on Muslim students wearing Hijab in educational settings. This decision was appealed in the Supreme Court before a two-judge bench, resulting in a split verdict. This indicates that one judge was in favor of the ban while the other opposed it. The case will now be taken up by a larger bench.
|
||||||||||
