ARTICLE 26 – Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs

🟥 ARTICLE 26 – Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs

🧠 What is it?

Article 26 gives collective religious freedom — not to individuals like Article 25, but to religious groups (called denominations).

🔸Who gets this right?

👉 Every religious denomination or a section of it.

What is a Religious Denomination?

(As defined by the Supreme Court in SP Mittal case)

A religious denomination must have:

Feature	Meaning
Common faith/beliefs	Shared religious philosophy or teachings
Common organization	Structure like a head, priests, or trust
Distinct name	Identifiable name like Shaivism, Sunni, Jain, etc.

✅ Examples:

Hindus → Shaivism, Vaishnavism
Muslims → Shia, Sunni
Others → Ramakrishna Mission, Ananda Marga (SC held they are denominations)
❌ Aurobindo Society – Not a religious denomination.

🟦 Rights Given Under Article 26

Clause	Right Given	Simple Explanation
(a)	To establish & maintain religious & charitable institutions	Build temples, gurudwaras, mutts, madrasas, and run them
(b)	To manage their own affairs in matters of religion	Freedom to decide religious practices, rituals, customs
(c)	To own and acquire property (movable or immovable)	Buy or receive land, buildings, money, etc.
(d)	To administer such property as per law	Manage that property legally (under trust, board, etc.)

✅ Important Clarifications and Case Laws:

🔹 Relation between Article 25 and 26:

Earlier confusion: Article 26 seemed independent of 25.

But in Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, SC clarified:

Article 25(2) (social reform) can override Article 26.
So Article 26 is also subject to reform, not absolute.

🔹 26(a): Establish & Maintain Institutions

Group right (not individual).
Can exclude people of other religions from rituals.
Must be established by the denomination itself.

🔹 26(b): Manage Religious Affairs

Religious groups can decide rites and ceremonies.
But State can restrict if:
- ⚠️ Against public order
- ⚠️ Immoral
- ⚠️ Harmful to health

📚 Excommunication Case

Sardar Syedna Saifuddin v. State of Bombay (1962)

Issue: Can Dawoodi Bohra leader (Dai) excommunicate members?
Bombay Act banned excommunication.
SC Verdict: Power to excommunicate is part of managing religious affairs under Article 26(b). So the law was unconstitutional.

But today, this issue is being re-examined in 2022:

Due to Social Boycott Act (2016) in Maharashtra
SC will test it on Constitutional Morality: whether such practices violate dignity, liberty, etc.

🔹 Haji Ali Dargah Case (2016–17)

Dargah Trust banned women from entering sanctum.
Trust claimed Article 26 right to manage affairs.
HC said ❌: Article 26 can’t violate:
- Article 14 (equality)
- Article 15 (no gender discrimination)
- Article 25 (women’s religious freedom)

➡️ Conclusion: Religious institutions with public character must follow constitutional values.

🔹 26(c) & 26(d): Own and Administer Property

Religious groups can own temples, land, etc.
But managing such property must follow laws.

⚖️ Important case: Trivikram Narain Singh v. State of UP

Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act gave power to manage temple to a Board.
SC said this is valid – as long as the religious part isn’t interfered with.

⚖️ Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui Case

Land of Babri Masjid acquired by Govt.
SC: Mosque is not essential to Islam – Namaz can be offered anywhere.
So State can acquire immovable religious properties for public purpose.

Sabarimala Temple Case – Background

Sabarimala Temple in Kerala follows an old tradition:
❌ Women between ages 10 to 50 (who are usually menstruating) were not allowed to enter the temple.
Why?
The deity Lord Ayyappa is considered a celibate (brahmachari), and allowing women of reproductive age was seen as violating his vow.

🔸 2018 Supreme Court Verdict – Landmark Judgment

In the case Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018:
🧑‍⚖️ A 5-judge bench gave a 4:1 majority judgment.

✅ Majority View:

Ban is unconstitutional: It violates women's rights to equality (Article 14) and religious freedom (Article 25).
Ban is like untouchability, hence also violates Article 17.
Said this practice is not essential to the religion.
Women of all ages should be allowed entry.

❌ Dissenting View (Justice Indu Malhotra):

Courts should not interfere in religious beliefs unless they are harmful (like Sati).
This is a matter of faith, not equality.

🔸 Review Petitions & Current Status

Many groups challenged the 2018 judgment.
They argued:
- "Constitutional Morality" is a vague term.
- Court should not interfere in religious faith.
Supreme Court did not cancel the 2018 verdict, but:

It sent the matter to a larger 7-judge bench to examine wider questions.

SC referred the matter to a 7-judge bench, clubbing it with issues like:
- Entry of women into mosques
- Female genital mutilation (Dawoodi Bohras)

🔸 Larger Bench Will Examine: Big Constitutional Questions

How to balance Articles 25 and 26 (religion) with Article 14 (equality)?
Should courts decide what is “essential” to a religion?
Can outsiders (non-followers) file PILs against a religion's practices?
Should courts interfere in matters only theologians should decide?

❓Example: Can a non-Muslim file a PIL against women not allowed in mosques?

🔸 The Wider Implications

Will affect many other issues, like:
- Entry of women in mosques,
- Practice of female genital mutilation among Dawoodi Bohra community.

🧠 Understanding “Doctrine of Essentiality” – Very Important for UPSC

🔹 What is it?

Invented in 1954 in Shirur Mutt case.
SC said: The term “religion” includes essential practices and court can decide what is "essential".
Court said: Only practices that are essential/integral to a religion are protected.
Supreme Court took the power to decide what is essential.

🔹 Debates & Criticism

Essentiality vs Freedom of Religion
- In Ratilal Gandhi case (1954), SC said every person has the freedom to choose their beliefs.
- But essentiality test limits that freedom.
Judicial Overreach
- Critics say courts are not religious experts.
- How can judges decide what is essential to a religion?
Inconsistent Judgments
- Sometimes courts use religious texts.
- Sometimes they check what followers actually do.
- No fixed rule = creates confusion and arbitrariness.
Group Rights vs Individual Rights
- Essential practices protect group rights.
- But individuals also have religious rights.
- This creates a conflict.

🧠 Understanding “Constitutional Morality”

🔹 What is it?

Not defined in the Constitution.
Supreme Court says it means:
- Respecting the values of the Constitution.
- Promoting equality, dignity, liberty, and pluralism.

🔹 Use in 2018 Sabarimala Judgment

Article 25 allows freedom of religion subject to morality.
The court said:
- “Morality” means Constitutional Morality.
- So, if a religious practice violates equality, it’s unconstitutional, even if it’s based on faith.

⚠️ Limits on Article 26

Limits	Explanation
✅ Public Order	State can intervene if practices disturb peace
✅ Morality	Practices like Sati, exclusion of women = ❌
✅ Health	Animal sacrifices, unhygienic rituals can be regulated
❌ Other FRs?	Article 26 is not directly subject to other rights (like 14, 15), but courts balance all rights in modern judgments

📝 UPSC-Relevant Summary Table

Point	Summary
Article 26	Collective right of religious denominations
Rights Given	Establish institutions, manage religion, own property, administer it
Who gets it?	Religious groups with common faith, structure, and name
Limitations	Public order, morality, health
Famous Cases	Dawoodi Bohra (Excommunication), Haji Ali Dargah (Gender rights), Faruqui (Mosque land), Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act

📚 UPSC Connect:

Prelims:

Match the following: Articles and Rights
MCQs on “Religious Denomination” or “Excommunication”

Mains GS-2:

Q. Discuss the scope of Article 26 in light of recent judgments like Dawoodi Bohra, Haji Ali Dargah, and Social Boycott Act.
Q. Can freedom to manage religious affairs override gender equality?

Target IAS Kannada

ARTICLE 26 – Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs