Constitution of India
Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs
Part III — Fundamental Rights (Right to Freedom of Religion, Articles 25–28)
Clause (a)
WHAT IT SAYS: Every religious denomination or section thereof has the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, subject to public order, morality and health. WHAT IT MEANS: Religious groups can create and sustain temples, mosques, churches, charities, hospitals, and educational bodies linked to their faith — the State cannot prevent this unless public order, morality, or health is threatened. KEY DOCTRINE: 'Establish and maintain' must be read conjunctively — the denomination must have established the institution itself to claim the right to maintain it (Azeez Basha v. Union of India, 1968).
Clause (b)
WHAT IT SAYS: Every religious denomination or section thereof has the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. WHAT IT MEANS: The State cannot interfere in core religious affairs — doctrines, rituals, rites, appointment of spiritual leaders, or excommunication practices — unless they violate public order, morality, or health. KEY DOCTRINE: 'Essential Religious Practices' test — only practices that are essential and integral to a religion get Article 26(b) protection; secular or superstitious accretions do not (Durgah Committee v. Syed Hussain Ali, 1961).
Clause (c)
WHAT IT SAYS: Every religious denomination or section thereof has the right to own and acquire movable and immovable property. WHAT IT MEANS: Religious groups can legally purchase, hold, and possess land, buildings, and movable assets needed for their religious and charitable activities. KEY DOCTRINE: This is a fundamental right, but the State can acquire religious property in exceptional circumstances for a larger national purpose — mosques, temples, churches are immovable property but worship at a specific place is not per se essential to religion.
Clause (d)
WHAT IT SAYS: Every religious denomination or section thereof has the right to administer such property in accordance with law. WHAT IT MEANS: Religious denominations can manage their own properties, but this administration must comply with laws enacted by the State — the State can regulate financial management, transparency, and accountability but cannot completely take over administration. KEY DOCTRINE: Right to administer property is a limited right subject to regulation by law, unlike the absolute right to manage religious affairs under clause (b); a law that entirely strips a denomination of administrative control violates Article 26(d) (Shirur Mutt Case, 1954).
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Ireland — Article 44 of the Irish Constitution, 1937 Original provision: Recognised specific religious denominations (Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church, Jewish Congregations, etc.) and protected their property from diversion except for public utility on payment of compensation. What India kept: The concept of 'religious denomination' and its rights to manage affairs, own property, and administer institutions. 2. Poland — Article 114 of the Constitution of Poland, 1921 Original provision: Guaranteed religious freedom and denominational autonomy to organised religious bodies. What India kept: Indirectly borrowed via the Irish Constitution — the idea that organised religious groups have collective rights distinct from individual religious freedom. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Added 'or any section thereof' — K.M. Munshi proposed this in the Constituent Assembly to extend rights not just to whole denominations but also to sub-sects and smaller groupings within them. 2. Removed enumeration of specific denominations — Unlike Ireland's Article 44 which listed specific churches by name, India's Article 26 is religion-neutral, applying equally to all denominations of all faiths. 3. Added 'subject to public order, morality and health' — Dr. Ambedkar introduced this limiting clause to enable State regulation, absent in the original Irish provision. 4. Combined property rights with religious management rights in one article — The Irish Constitution separated these; India consolidated all four rights (establish, manage, own, administer) in a single article for clarity.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 7 December 1948 (CAD Volume VII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 20 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Moved amendment to add 'subject to public order, morality and health' as a qualifying restriction, stating that similar restrictions applied to other fundamental rights and the State must retain regulatory power. 2. K.M. Munshi (Bombay) — Proposed inclusion of the phrase 'or any section thereof' to extend denominational rights to sub-groups within a denomination. 3. An unnamed member — Objected to the word 'charitable' in clause (a), arguing that allowing denominations to run charitable institutions only for their own members violated the principles of fraternity and single nationality. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Qualifying restriction — Ambedkar's amendment to add 'public order, morality and health' was accepted without debate, indicating broad consensus. 2. Word 'charitable' in clause (a) — One member argued it could promote sectarian exclusivity in charitable activities, but the objection was not accepted. 3. Several other amendments were proposed and rejected without substantive debate. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 20 was adopted with Ambedkar's amendment adding the qualifying clause and Munshi's addition of 'any section thereof'; objection to 'charitable' was rejected. AMBEDKAR'S KEY POSITION: The State must have the ability to regulate religious institutions and their affairs if necessary — similar restrictions apply to all other fundamental rights.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) — Defined 'religious denomination' via a three-part test: (i) common faith, (ii) common organisation, (iii) distinctive name; held that denominations have complete autonomy over religious matters but secular activities can be State-regulated. 2. Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1958) — Held that Article 26(b) must yield to Article 25(2)(b); temple entry laws override denominational exclusion rights, except during special ceremonies. 3. Durgah Committee, Ajmer v. Syed Hussain Ali (1961) — Established 'Essential Religious Practices' doctrine — only practices integral to religion get Article 26 protection; superstitious accretions do not. 4. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962) — Upheld excommunication by Dai-ul-Mutlaq of Dawoodi Bohra community as a protected 'matter of religion' under Article 26(b). 5. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India (1983) — Held Aurobindo Society and Auroville are not 'religious denominations' as their philosophy is not 'religion'; government takeover did not violate Articles 25 or 26. 6. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — Affirmed that freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 forms part of the Constitution's unalterable basic structure. 7. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case, 2018) — Majority held that Article 26 denominational rights cannot override constitutional morality, gender equality (Article 14), or individual religious freedom (Article 25); referred to larger bench for review. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice Indu Malhotra in Sabarimala Case (2018) — Dissented, holding that courts should not interfere with essential religious practices of a denomination; what constitutes an essential practice must be determined by the denomination itself, not by courts. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Arvind P. Datar (Senior Advocate) — Argued that 'religious denomination' is a Judeo-Christian concept borrowed from Ireland, poorly suited to Hinduism's decentralised sampradaya structure. 2. D.D. Basu (Constitutional scholar) — Noted that Article 26 guarantees collective religious freedom complementing the individual freedom under Article 25, and the right under clause (d) is a limited right regulable by law unlike the absolute right under clause (b).