Article 26 of Indian Constitution: Rights of Religious Denominations Explained
India’s Constitution stands as one of the most comprehensive in the world, meticulously balancing diverse interests to secure justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Among its core guarantees is the protection of religious freedom—a principle essential to the fabric of Indian society. While Article 25 preserves individual freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, Article 26 of the Indian Constitution goes a step further by safeguarding the collective rights of religious denominations. These provisions enable religious groups to manage their own affairs, a system uniquely attuned to the nation’s vast plurality. Understanding Article 26 is fundamental to grasping the nuanced relationship between state and religion in India.
Understanding Article 26: Scope and Legal Language
Article 26 extends particular freedoms to every “religious denomination” and any section thereof. The text of Article 26 reads:
“Subject to public order, morality and health, 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; and
(d) to administer such property in accordance with law.”
Key Elements Explained
- Religious Denominations: The term isn’t rigidly defined within the Constitution, but the Supreme Court of India, in landmark judgments like The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954), has clarified that a group must have a common faith, a distinct name, and be designated as a collective body to qualify.
- Subject to Restrictions: The rights are not absolute. They are contingent on public order, morality, and health, allowing the state a measure of regulatory oversight, especially in cases involving social reform.
“The Constitution permits religious denominations wide latitude in managing their affairs, but this autonomy is not unbounded—the interests of public order and legitimacy remain paramount.”
— Justice B.K. Mukherjea, Shirur Mutt Case (1954)
The Four Fundamental Rights Under Article 26
1. Establishment and Maintenance of Institutions
Religious groups may set up schools, temples, monasteries, and charitable organizations. For example, the Aga Khan Foundation and many Hindu mutts exercise this right, creating vast networks of educational and welfare institutions across the country. The law protects both their formation and day-to-day administration.
2. Management of Religious Affairs
In practice, this right allows denominations to determine matters of worship, rituals, leadership appointments, and administration independently. This autonomy is central to maintaining the doctrinal integrity and unique traditions of each group.
Case Example
Sikhs, under the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), manage gurdwaras according to Sikh traditions. Interference, unless violating public health or order, is typically outside the government’s purview.
3. Ownership and Acquisition of Property
Most places of worship—including churches, mosques, temples, and monasteries—hold property in the name of the religious body. Indian law enables such institutions to acquire lands, donations, and movable assets, essential for their sustainability.
4. Administration of Property in Accordance with Law
While denominations have rights over their assets, regulatory frameworks such as the Wakf Act or Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Acts lay down procedures for management to prevent malpractice and ensure transparency.
Balancing Religious Autonomy and State Regulation
The Public Order, Morality, and Health Test
No fundamental right in India is absolute. Article 26 rights can be limited when actions jeopardize public safety or violate broader societal values. For example, religious practices involving harmful rituals may be restrained under the law.
Adjudicating Conflicts: Notable Judgments
- Shirur Mutt Case (1954): Established the “essential practices” doctrine, protecting religious practices that form the core of a faith while allowing state intervention in secular matters.
- Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958): Upheld the right of denominations to manage internal affairs but endorsed state regulation to promote social reform and welfare.
Modern Challenges to Article 26: Contemporary Controversies
State Control and Secular Oversight
Many states exercise considerable control over temple finances and administration, arguing that such interventions ensure transparency and prevent mismanagement. Critics, however, contend that state involvement can sometimes infringe upon genuine religious autonomy.
Social Reform Movements
Recent decades have seen movements for temple entry by historically excluded castes and genders—raising questions about the limits of denominational autonomy under Article 26. Supreme Court judgments on the Sabarimala temple and Haji Ali Dargah have expanded access, interpreting that some exclusionary customs are not “essential religious practices.”
New Legal and Social Realities
The digital era presents unique challenges: charitable institutions linked to religious denominations face enhanced regulatory scrutiny for the management of funds and compliance with anti-money laundering and foreign contribution laws.
The Broader Impact of Article 26 on Indian Society
Preserving Pluralism
Article 26’s protections are vital in a country of immense religious diversity. They foster an environment where multiple faiths can thrive, adapt, and contribute to social welfare on their own terms.
Interfaith Examples and Collective Action
In cities like Hyderabad and Mumbai, religious trusts often collaborate to deliver disaster relief or community services, showcasing how Article 26’s freedoms can produce positive interfaith outcomes.
Ongoing Debates
Some legal scholars caution that inconsistent state policies and lack of clarity in key definitions (such as “religious denomination”) can result in confusion or litigation. Others see Article 26 as the essential barrier against majoritarianism and a guarantor of minority rights.
Conclusion: The Living Legacy of Article 26
Article 26 of the Indian Constitution is far more than a textual promise—it is an evolving foundation for religious self-governance, institutional integrity, and social inclusion. Whether supporting millennia-old denominations or newly formed sects, its protections remain vital to maintaining balance in a secular democracy like India. Continued legal clarity and thoughtful regulation will be needed to keep this equilibrium intact as Indian society diversifies even further.
FAQs
What is Article 26 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 26 grants every religious denomination the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, establish religious and charitable institutions, own property, and administer such assets according to the law, subject to public order, morality, and health.
How does Article 26 differ from Article 25?
While Article 25 protects the individual’s right to freely practice and propagate religion, Article 26 safeguards the collective institutional rights of religious denominations to manage their religious affairs and assets.
Who qualifies as a “religious denomination” under Article 26?
A religious denomination typically refers to a group with a common faith, organizational structure, and distinctive practices. Indian courts interpret the term flexibly, assessing each group’s history and characteristics.
Can the state interfere in the functioning of religious institutions?
Yes, the state can intervene if practices threaten public order, morality, or health, or if there’s evidence of financial mismanagement or legal violations. However, intervention is generally limited to secular, not religious, matters.
Are there landmark cases interpreting Article 26?
Notable cases include The Shirur Mutt case (1954), which outlined the “essential practices” doctrine, and Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958), which examined the boundaries of religious autonomy.
What current issues are associated with Article 26?
Many debates center on state control of religious properties, gender and caste-based access to temples, and the compliance of religious charities with financial regulations—reflecting ongoing negotiation between religious freedom and broader societal needs.
