Constitution of India
Article 27: Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion
Part III — Fundamental Rights
Article 27 (no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. The State cannot levy a tax whose proceeds are earmarked for promoting or maintaining any specific religion. 2. Applies only to TAXES — not to fees charged for specific services rendered. 3. A person may refuse to pay any such religiously-appropriated tax. 4. General-purpose taxes that incidentally benefit religious institutions are NOT barred. FOUR ELEMENTS FOR VIOLATION (all must co-exist): 1. There must be a TAX (not a fee). 2. Its proceeds must be SPECIFICALLY APPROPRIATED for religion. 3. The appropriation must be for PROMOTION or MAINTENANCE of a religion. 4. A person must be COMPELLED to pay it. KEY DOCTRINE: Tax vs. Fee Doctrine — Article 27 prohibits only compulsory taxes, not regulatory fees for secular administration of religious institutions (Shirur Mutt, 1954).
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United States — First Amendment (Establishment Clause) Original provision: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' What India kept: The principle that the State must not financially support or endorse any particular religion using public money. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. India's Article 27 is NARROWER — it specifically targets taxation for religious promotion, not all state-religion interaction. India follows 'equal respect for all religions' (Sarva Dharma Sambhava), not strict separation. 2. India permits State regulation of secular aspects of religious institutions (Arts. 25-26), unlike the US wall of separation — the framers wanted regulatory power over temple endowments, wakf boards, etc. 3. India's Article 290-A explicitly allows fixed sums from Consolidated Fund of Kerala and Tamil Nadu for Travancore Devaswom Board and Tiruchendur temple — a carve-out that shows Indian secularism is NOT total financial separation. 4. Historical adaptation against Jizya-type taxes — the framers drew from India's own experience of discriminatory religious levies in pre-colonial and colonial times, not just American precedent.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 7 December 1948 (CAD Volume VII) Draft Article Number: 21 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Syed Abdur Rouf (Assam, Muslim) — Proposed adding 'wholly or partly' to widen the prohibition to cover even partial appropriation of tax proceeds for religion. 2. Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar (Madras, General) — Opposed both amendments; argued the existing text was already sufficient to cover partial appropriation. 3. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal, Muslim) — Proposed substituting 'the proceeds of which' with 'on any income of which', arguing taxes relate to income not gross receipts. 4. Shri Guptanath Singh (Bihar, General) — Misinterpreted the Article as exempting religious property from taxation; argued religious property should be taxed like other property. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Scope of 'specifically appropriated' — Syed Abdur Rouf wanted 'wholly or partly' added; Ayyangar deemed it unnecessary as the existing language already covered this. 2. Meaning of 'proceeds' vs 'income' — Naziruddin Ahmad argued for 'income' (net receipts), but this was rejected. 3. Confusion about the Article's purpose — Some members mistakenly believed it exempted religious property from all taxation; others clarified it only banned tax revenue being earmarked for religious promotion. FINAL OUTCOME: All proposed amendments were rejected; Draft Article 21 was adopted WITHOUT any amendment on 7 December 1948. HISTORICAL CONTEXT CITED IN DEBATE: Members recalled that Indian kings historically collected special taxes (like Jizya) to support a particular religion — this practice had no place in secular India.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954) — The Supreme Court held that contributions levied under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act were FEES (not taxes) for secular administration, hence not violative of Article 27. Established the crucial Tax vs. Fee distinction. 2. Nasima Khatun v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1981) — The Court held that contributions under the Bengal Wakfs Act were fees for education of meritorious students, a secular purpose, and did not attract Article 27. 3. P.M. Bhargava v. University Grants Commission (AIR 2004) — The Court ruled that teaching of Jyotish Vigyan (astrology) in universities is a secular academic activity, not religious instruction, and does not fall under Article 27. 4. Prafull Goradia v. Union of India (2011) — The Supreme Court held that Article 27 prohibits levying a tax TO PROMOTE religion, but does not prohibit expenditure of general tax revenue on religious activities (like Haj subsidy) if done equally for all faiths. Directed progressive phase-out of Haj subsidy. 5. State of Gujarat v. Islamic Relief Committee of Gujarat (2017) — The Court held that diversion of tax proceeds for rebuilding religious shrines destroyed in riots violates Article 27 and the principle of secularism. Applied a Strict Separation reading. NOTABLE OBSERVATIONS: 1. Article 282 is complementary to Article 27 — it covers the expenditure side while Article 27 covers the revenue/taxation side (Kidangazhi Manakkal Narayanan v. State of Madras, 1953). 2. Article 290-A (fixed sums to Devaswom Board) is a specific constitutional exception to the general principle of Article 27. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. M.P. Jain (Indian Constitutional Law) — Article 27 underscores the importance of maintaining separation between religion and state affairs; no citizen should be compelled to financially support a religion they do not follow. 2. D.D. Basu (Introduction to the Constitution of India) — Article 27 serves as a safeguard for individual rights, reflecting the broader ethos of equality and non-discrimination characterizing the secular fabric of the Indian state.