Article 26 of the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution is renowned for its commitment to safeguarding fundamental rights, particularly the right to freedom of religion. Within Part III of the Constitution, which enumerates Fundamental Rights, Article 26 plays a crucial role by protecting the rights of religious denominations or sections thereof. Unlike Article 25, which primarily secures the individual’s right to profess and practise religion, Article 26 protects the collective rights of religious communities.

Article 26 ensures that religious denominations have the autonomy to manage their religious affairs, establish and maintain institutions, acquire and administer property, subject to reasonable restrictions related to public order, morality, and health. This article explores the scope, limitations, and judicial interpretations of Article 26, shedding light on its significance in upholding India’s secular and pluralistic fabric.

Understanding Article 26: Text and Scope

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution states:

“Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right—

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

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

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

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

This provision grants several fundamental rights to religious denominations. It recognises the collective identity of religious groups and allows them to function and govern themselves with minimal interference, ensuring their religious freedom and cultural identity are preserved.

However, these rights are not absolute and must be exercised in harmony with public order, morality, and health. This conditionality reflects the Constitution’s intent to balance religious freedom with the broader interests of society.

Collective Right to Freedom of Religion

One of the essential features of Article 26 is that it protects the rights of religious groups, not merely individuals. While Article 25 guarantees religious freedom to individuals, Article 26 focuses on religious denominations — organised communities sharing common beliefs, doctrines, and practices.

The Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954), clarified the concept of a “religious denomination.” The Court stated that a religious denomination is a collection of individuals who:

• Share a common faith;
• Are organised under a common structure; and
• Have a distinctive name.

Such denominations include various religious communities in India, such as different sects within Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, and others.

Clause-Wise Explanation of Article 26 of Constitution of India

Right to Establish and Maintain Institutions (Clause a)

Religious denominations have the right to set up and maintain institutions like temples, mosques, churches, monasteries, and charitable organisations such as schools and hospitals. The right to “establish and maintain” should be read together, meaning a denomination can maintain only those institutions it has itself established.

For instance, if a mosque has been established by a Muslim denomination in a locality, only that denomination has the right to maintain it.

Right to Manage Religious Affairs (Clause b)

Religious denominations have the right to manage their internal religious matters, including rites, ceremonies, and religious customs. This right is central to religious autonomy but is subject to limitations if the practices violate public order, morality, or health.

Courts have developed the “essential religious practices” test to determine which religious practices merit constitutional protection. Only those practices that are essential to the religion qualify for protection.

Right to Own and Acquire Property (Clause c)

Religious denominations can acquire movable and immovable property necessary for their religious or charitable purposes. This acquisition must be made according to existing laws.

Right to Administer Property (Clause d)

Once acquired, religious denominations have the fundamental right to administer and manage their property. This administration must also comply with legal regulations but cannot be completely taken over by the State or any secular authority.

Limitations Imposed on Article 26 Rights

While Article 26 grants significant freedoms to religious denominations, it explicitly places restrictions to maintain harmony and public welfare.

• Public Order: Any religious practice or institutional activity that threatens peace and order can be regulated or restricted by the State.
• Morality: Practices deemed immoral by societal standards may be limited.
• Health: Religious activities that endanger public health are subject to regulation.

These restrictions ensure that religious freedoms do not infringe on the rights and safety of others or disturb societal equilibrium.

Landmark Cases on Article 26 of the Indian Constitution

The Indian judiciary has consistently interpreted Article 26 to strike a balance between religious autonomy and the State’s duty to protect public interests.

Shirur Mutt Case (1954)

In Shirur Mutt case, the Supreme Court distinguished between secular activities and essential religious practices. It held that the State may regulate secular affairs of religious institutions but must not interfere in core religious practices. This case established the foundation of the “essential religious practices” test.

Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1957)

Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore case dealt with restrictions imposed on entry into temples. The Court ruled that the right of all Hindus to enter temples under Article 25(2)(b) outweighs the denomination’s restrictive rules under Article 26(b). The Court emphasised that restrictions violating essential religious rights or public rights would be unconstitutional.

Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962)

The Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, which prohibited excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community, was challenged. The Supreme Court held that legislature cannot interfere with essential religious practices. The Act was declared unconstitutional as it infringed the religious freedom guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26.

Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961)

The Court held that removal of the Sajjadanashin (religious custodian) by civil courts is impermissible. Religious denominations have exclusive rights to manage their religious institutions unless there is a compelling secular reason for intervention.

Khajamian Wakf Estates v. State of Madras (1970)

The Court ruled that the State can acquire religious property under valid laws but must respect the religious denomination’s right to administer such property. Acquisition, if done legally, does not violate Article 26.

Relationship Between Articles 25 and 26

While Article 25 focuses on individual religious freedom, Article 26 concerns collective religious rights. In cases where these rights appear to conflict, courts have sought to harmonise them to ensure both individual and communal religious freedoms are protected.

For example, the right of all Hindus to access temples (Article 25(2)(b)) may limit a religious denomination’s right to restrict access under Article 26(b), as long as the worship remains meaningful.

Conclusion

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution is a vital provision that upholds the right of religious denominations to self-governance over their religious affairs, institutions, and properties. It balances the freedom of religious communities with the need to preserve public order, morality, and health.

The Supreme Court and other courts have played a pivotal role in interpreting this Article, ensuring that religious freedom in India flourishes within constitutional bounds. For India’s diverse society, Article 26 affirms the constitutional commitment to respect and protect religious plurality while promoting peaceful coexistence.