Religious Freedom in India
Context:
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court (SC), led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, is currently examining the broader implications of its 2018 Sabarimala ruling.
The Constitutional Debate:
Under Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Constitution, Articles 25 to 28 guarantee the right to freedom of religion.
The core of the Sabarimala matter focuses specifically on the complex interplay between Articles 25 and 26, as the Court attempts to distinguish between protected religious practices and those that are amenable to reform.
Articles 25:
It grants "all persons" the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion.
These individual rights are explicitly subject to 'public order', 'morality', 'health', and critically, 'other fundamental rights'.
While Article 25(1) guarantees these religious freedoms, Article 25(2)(a) permits the State to regulate secular activities associated with religious practices.
Article 26:
It grants 'religious denominations' the autonomy to manage their own religious affairs, establish institutions, and administer property.
Significantly, the denominational rights under Article 26 are not subject to all other fundamental rights, making this classification highly coveted compared to the general protections of Article 25.
The Definition of a "Religious Denomination"
The expression "religious denomination" was borrowed from Article 44 of the 1937 Irish Constitution, which originally used the term in the context of clearly defined and organised Christian sects.
In the Shirur Mutt case (1954), the Supreme Court adopted the Oxford Dictionary meaning and established a strict three-part test for a group to qualify:
They must have
A common faith
A common organisation
Designation by a distinct name.
Applying this test in the 2018 Indian Young Lawyers' Association case, the Supreme Court determined that Ayyappa devotees do not constitute a separate 'religious denomination'.
The Court reasoned that Ayyappa devotees were not distinct from the broader Hindu faith, noting that the Sabarimala temple allowed entry to Hindus across various sects rather than exclusively to followers of Ayyappa.
The Union government has strongly argued that "constitutional morality" is highly subjective and should not serve as an independent ground for judicial review.
It contends that judges are ill-equipped to legally determine what constitutes an essential religious practice and should not act as social reformers
Instead, such reforms should emanate organically from the legislature and the society itself.
"Section Thereof":
The framers of the Constitution carefully extended denominational rights to every religious denomination "or any section thereof" under Article 26(1).
This allows for a scenario where sub-sections of a larger faith can still enjoy these specific rights even if they aren't completely distinct.