Religious denominations under the Indian Constitution

Invention

Our lives are directly impacted by religion. The religious beliefs in this society are so extensive that they encompass every part of life, from conception to death, according to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Hinduism is frequently described as a way of life rather than merely a religion. Therefore, the basic freedom of religion is expressly granted by the constitution in Part III, Articles 25 and 26. This right is established in two ways: first, the individual's right to practice, profess, and spread their religion; and second, the denomination's or section's right. These unquestionably have limitations related to public morals, health, and order.

Article 26 grants a religious group a collective right, whereas Article 25 is a personal right. In the constitution, it creates a complex junction of individual and group rights.Group rights refer to a religion's ability to function as a structured faith. Article clauses (a) to (d) list four rights, including the right to found and maintain a religious organisation, the right to govern its own affairs in relation to religion, and the right to possess, acquire, and manage property.

ARTICLE 25 AND ARTICLE 26 REFERENCE

Article 25's scope is specifically limited by the phrase "to the other provisions of this part" that follows. However, Article 26 does not have such a phrase and is primarily concerned with "public order, morality, and health." Thus, it may be deduced that Article 26 establishes denominational autonomy and prioritises the rights of the denomination. It would seem from the constitution's overall design that Article 26 is not made subject to its requirements. However, the Supreme Court skillfully crafted the two sections in its ruling in Sri Venkataramana Devaruand Ors. v. The State of Mysore & Ors. The court ruled that Article 25(2) had a broader range of applicability. 

In order for the right conferred under Article 26 to not significantly decrease the right in Article 25, Article 26 must submit to the limitations imposed in Article 25.

What Exactly Is a Religious Term?

'Religious denomination' is not defined in the constitution. A denomination is defined as "a collection of individuals, classed together under the same name; now almost always specifically, specially a religious sect or body having a common faith and organisation and designated by a distinctive name" in the seminal decision of the Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt. S.P. Mitta further clarified the legislation about how to determine the character of a designation.

Thus if a body has a:

1. Common Faith

2. Common Organisation

3. Distinctive Name;

It falls under the category of a religious organisation.

The word "section" is used in Article 26 as well, making it applicable to a sect or sub-sect of a religion. For the sake of this article, Arya Samaj shall be considered a religious denomination even if it is not a religion in and of itself.

In contrast to Article 30, which encompasses linguistic and religious minorities, Article 26 uses the phrase "religious denomination" differently. For the purposes of exercising the protection provided by Article 26, the denomination's scope is irrelevant.

RIGHTS PROTECTED BY ARTICLE 26

• The right to create and support institutions for philanthropic and religious purposes.

                The authors of the constitution thought that having the freedom to govern and administer religious and benevolent organisations was crucial for their formation.A religious denomination must first establish the institution in order for it to be maintained by that religion right. The court declined to award Aligarh Muslim University protection under Article 26(a), much as it did in the case of Azeez Basha v. Union of India. It was established by a legislation, not by Muslims, thus they do not have the sole authority to manage it.

• The freedom to conduct one's own religious affairs.

              The protection against discrimination guaranteed by Article 25(2)(b) is upheld, although the institutional right to organised religion is upheld under Article 26(b). In the case of Devaru, the court determined that "matters of religion" as defined in Article 26 encompass the doctrines and practises that are fundamental to a religion and come within its purview. In essence, the court expanded the use of the "Essential Religious Functions Test" that was developed in the Shirur Matt case.(To be covered later) As a consequence, Harijans were permitted to enter the temple, with the exception of a few rites in which only members of the community were permitted to partake.

• Ability to acquire and own both mobile and immovable property, as well as the ability to manage it.

           Any institution's ability to handle its own affairs depends on its ability to possess and acquire property. If a body does not have the flexibility to manage and govern its property, it cannot function properly. This is not an absolute right since it does not prevent the government from acquiring a religious organization's property.As result, the state as well as the denomination may rule over the property. However, the restriction must be fair and not be of a kind that fully invalidates the right. Additionally, the clause (d). There is no legislation that can restrict the ability to control religious issues. In the case Ratiala Panachand Gandhi v. the State of Bombay, certain guidelines were set.

LANDMARK DECISIONS

Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt is opposed by The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras. 

In this instance, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 provisions were contested as being in violation of both the right to property and the freedom of religion.

When defining religion, the Supreme Court created the "essentiality test." The court ruled that only customs and rituals that are fundamental to a religion should be considered.

As a result of this ruling, not all practises may now be considered religious and enjoy constitutional protection. Only those religious doctrines and practises that are fundamental to the faith are safeguarded. For instance, the namaz is a fundamental Islamic practise, yet the offering of the namaz in a mosque is not a fundamental aspect of Islam. Secular issues that do not influence religious views do not belong to religion. For instance, administering the temple's property is a secular activity.In deciding whether a practice's essence is vital, the court has typically largely leaned on the Bible and sermons from the saints.

Sri Venkataramana Devaruand Others v.The State of Mysore and Ors.

The Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act, which permitted entry of Harijans into the temple, was challenged in this instance by the trustees of the Shri Venkataramana Temple of Moolky Petta on the grounds that it violated their temple's freedom to run its own affairs.

The trustees of the Sri Venkataramana temple in Moolky Petta filed an appeal to the HC judgement in this case, requesting that the restriction on Harijan's access to the temple grounds be upheld. The Temple of asserted that it was a religious organisation with the unalienable right to conduct its own business independent of state regulation with regard to its religious practise. The High Court affirmed the public's freedom to worship but continued to forbid only certain instances of special rituals. When rejecting the appeal, the Supreme Court cited Article 25(2) (b) of the must be interpreted liberally in order to serve the public and be understood in harmony with Article 26. Additionally, it said that Article 26 is subject to the limitations of Article 25 and is not an absolute right. The essentiality concept was used to clause (b) "matters of religion," further reading along the Article 26 scheme. With the exception of a few special occasions when entrance would be limited, Harijans were welcome to enter.

CONCLUSION

It is obvious that under the Indian constitution, a group's right to practise an organized religion is included in the right to freedom of religion. The judiciary has consistently advanced the cause of  This group's rights have been violated by the individual. Despite the fact that article 26 is expressly free of any phrases or words that may be interpreted as opening it up to the influence of other laws, it has been rendered subject to the idea of necessary religious practises. In her dissent in the Sabarimala temple case, Justice Indu Malhotra sharply criticised this vision of the court as it is now constituted.Article 26 is solely subject to public order, morals, and health and not to the other provisions of the Constitution, in contrast to Article 25, which is also subject to the other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. 

Therefore, Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution do not apply to the denomination's Fundamental Rights. In spite of this, the Indian constitution is exceptional since it is the only one that essentially protects the right of an organised faith and defends religious institutions in a pluralist country like India.