RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AND REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS: A CRITICAL STUDY
Religious Rights and Reasonable Restrictions: A Critical Study
1. Constitutional Provisions on Religious Rights
The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion under Part III – Fundamental Rights, specifically:
Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs.
Article 27: Freedom from paying taxes for promotion of any particular religion.
Article 28: Freedom from attending religious instruction in certain educational institutions.
2. Scope of Religious Rights
Article 25 is the cornerstone guaranteeing religious freedom.
The right includes personal belief, worship, rituals, and propagation (but not conversion by force or fraud).
Religious rights are subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions of Part III.
3. Reasonable Restrictions on Religious Rights
Article 25(1) states that the freedom is subject to public order, morality, health, and other fundamental rights.
Restrictions can be imposed by law in the interest of public order, morality, health, or to protect other fundamental rights.
Laws regulating secular activities associated with religion (like banning animal sacrifice for public health) are allowed.
4. Critical Issues and Judicial Interpretations
a. Balancing Religious Freedom and Social Welfare
The state must balance individual religious rights with community welfare and rights of others.
Restrictions are reasonable if aimed at social reform, e.g., banning untouchability or bigamy.
b. Landmark Cases
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Religious freedom is part of secularism but subject to public order.
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): Students refused to sing national anthem on religious grounds; Court upheld their right.
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala case, 2018): The Supreme Court lifted the ban on women of menstruating age entering the temple, holding gender equality and fundamental rights override religious customs.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): Triple talaq was struck down as unconstitutional, emphasizing the limits of religious practices when they violate fundamental rights.
5. Critical Study: Challenges and Debates
a. Defining 'Religion' and Religious Practices
Courts struggle to differentiate between core religious beliefs (protected) and secular/social practices (regulatable).
Some practices are inherently discriminatory or harmful (e.g., untouchability, gender discrimination).
b. Clash Between Religious Autonomy and Fundamental Rights
Freedom of religion vs. Right to Equality: The Constitution prohibits discrimination but allows religious practices which may conflict with equality.
Gender justice vs. Religious customs: Courts have often intervened in practices that discriminate against women (e.g., Sabarimala, triple talaq).
c. Scope of ‘Reasonable Restrictions’
The term is broad and can be misused to suppress minority religions.
Needs clearer legislative guidelines to prevent arbitrary state interference.
d. Secularism and State Neutrality
The state must maintain neutrality, neither promoting nor inhibiting religion.
The idea of “positive secularism” allows the state to intervene for social reform.
6. Conclusion
Religious freedom is fundamental but not absolute.
Reasonable restrictions are necessary to protect public order, health, morality, and fundamental rights of others.
Courts have played a progressive role in limiting harmful or discriminatory religious practices.
The challenge lies in maintaining a balance between respecting religious diversity and ensuring constitutional rights such as equality and dignity.
The debate continues on how far the state should interfere in religious matters without infringing on genuine religious beliefs.
RELATED Blog
0 comments