Control of religious institutions
Control of Religious Institutions
Context:
Religious institutions are often central to the practice of religion, and their management can involve issues like administration, property, appointment of trustees, and financial affairs. The question arises as to how far the state or courts can intervene in the management of religious institutions without violating religious freedom guaranteed under constitutional provisions (like Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution).
Constitutional Provisions:
Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
Article 26 provides every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.
Principle:
The state can regulate religious institutions in matters of secular character (like administration, public order, health, morality, etc.) but cannot interfere with the core religious practices.
Landmark Case Laws on Control of Religious Institutions
1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Facts: Although primarily about the federal structure, this case also discussed secularism and the relationship between the state and religious institutions.
Principle: The Court reaffirmed that secularism means equal treatment of all religions by the state. It held that the state cannot control religious institutions in matters of religion but can regulate them in secular matters.
Significance: It set a foundational tone that the state must maintain secularism, meaning non-interference in religious beliefs but allowing regulation for public welfare.
2. Sri Venkateswara Temple Case (Andhra Pradesh) (1956)
Facts: The Andhra Pradesh government took over the management of the famous Sri Venkateswara temple.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the state can regulate religious institutions if the regulation is aimed at preventing mismanagement or corruption, but it cannot interfere with purely religious practices.
Principle: The court upheld the state’s authority to regulate secular aspects (such as finances, management) of religious institutions to ensure they operate properly and efficiently.
Significance: Differentiated between secular administration and religious worship, permitting state control over the former.
3. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986)
Facts: Although this case primarily concerns religious freedom in education, it touches upon the limits of state interference with religious practices.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of children refusing to sing the national anthem on religious grounds.
Principle: It reinforced that religious practices must be respected, and the state cannot coerce individuals or institutions to act against their religious beliefs.
Significance: Highlights limits on state control in matters of religious conscience, which can extend to institutional practices.
4. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954)
Facts: This case involved government regulation of religious mutts (monasteries).
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the state can regulate religious institutions in secular matters but cannot interfere in religious matters.
Principle: It clarified the scope of state control, saying that secular aspects such as property management can be regulated but religious beliefs and rituals must remain untouched.
Significance: A classic case establishing the "sect doctrine" — religious sects have autonomy in religious matters but can be subject to state regulation in secular matters.
5. S.R. Das Committee Report and Subsequent Cases (Background)
The S.R. Das Committee was set up to recommend reforms in the administration of religious institutions.
Various judgments following this committee’s recommendations emphasize the state’s role in regulating the administration (trustees, finances) but respecting religious autonomy in ritualistic practices.
Summary of Principles from Cases
| Aspect | Judicial View |
|---|---|
| State Regulation | Allowed for secular matters like management and finance. |
| Religious Practices | Protected from state interference (rituals, worship). |
| Religious Freedom | Absolute in belief, but limited in practice when public order or morality is involved. |
| Management of Property | Can be regulated by the state to prevent mismanagement. |
| Religious Institutions | Have autonomy in religious affairs but accountable in secular affairs. |
Conclusion
The control of religious institutions is a balancing act between the freedom of religion and public interest. Courts have consistently maintained that while religious institutions must be free to conduct their religious activities without interference, the state can and should intervene in secular matters to ensure proper administration, transparency, and public welfare.
RELATED Blog
0 comments