Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs
Published on: 28 June, 2020
Article 26 Bare Act
26. Freedom to manage religious affairs – subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right –
a. to establish and maintain institutions or 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.
a. to establish and maintain institutions or 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.
Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs
Introduction to Article 26
Article 26 is the second article of the Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25-28). This right to Freedom of Religion is a Fundamental Right which is given in our Constitution. This article is giving the freedom to manage the religious affairs of the citizens.
Subject to Public order, morality and health, this Article is guaranteeing to every religious denomination following 4 rights:
Subject to Public order, morality and health, this Article is guaranteeing to every religious denomination following 4 rights:
1. Article 26 (a): Right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.The right to establish and maintain religious institution is given to every religious institution. The word establishes and maintain must be read together. So it is important for a religious institution to first establish a religious institution and only then the right to maintain an institution is to be given to that group. It is to be noted that the right to maintain an institution will also include the right to administer it.
In the case of TMA Pai Foundation v. the State of Karnataka, AIR 2003, the court has said that the right to establish and maintain a religious institution is given to every religion. It can be a majority religion or even a minority religion.
In the case of TMA Pai Foundation v. the State of Karnataka, AIR 2003, the court has said that the right to establish and maintain a religious institution is given to every religion. It can be a majority religion or even a minority religion.
2. Article 26 (b): Right to manage its own affairs in matters of religionEvery religious institution has the right to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion. The State has got no right to interfere in these matters unless it is affecting the public order, morality and health of the citizens.
In the case of S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983, the validity of the Aurobindo (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980 was challenged on the ground that it was violative of their right to freedom of religion. Sri Aurobindo founded the philosophy of cosmic salvation. He and his disciples formed the Aurobindo Society. The court decided that the sayings of Sri Aurobindo were not religious institutions. So the taking over of the Aurobindo Ashram by the Government did not infringe Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
In the case of S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, AIR 1983, the validity of the Aurobindo (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1980 was challenged on the ground that it was violative of their right to freedom of religion. Sri Aurobindo founded the philosophy of cosmic salvation. He and his disciples formed the Aurobindo Society. The court decided that the sayings of Sri Aurobindo were not religious institutions. So the taking over of the Aurobindo Ashram by the Government did not infringe Article 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution.
3. Article 26 (c): Right to own and acquire movable and immovable propertyEvery religious denomination and a section are having the full right to own and acquire any movable or immovable property. The state can regulate the property of a religious denomination by law.
4. Article 26 (d): Right to administer such property in accordance with lawIt is the right of the religious institutions to acquire the property. After they acquire the property, they have the liberty to administer such property in accordance with law. The State can regulate the administration of the property belonging to the religious entity. It is also important to understand that the state cannot altogether take away the right of the administration from the religious institution.
Important cases related to Article 26
In the case of Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1972, the hereditary post of Archakas and Mathadhipatis of Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu challenged the validity of Tamil Nadu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1970 under Article 32 on the violation of Right to Freedom.
The Supreme Court decided that the post of Archaka is secular. The appointment of Archaka is not a religious practice nor is it an integral part of a religion. So the court upheld the appointment of Archakas according to prevailing usage and custom. The right to succession also remained valid.
The Supreme Court decided that the post of Archaka is secular. The appointment of Archaka is not a religious practice nor is it an integral part of a religion. So the court upheld the appointment of Archakas according to prevailing usage and custom. The right to succession also remained valid.
In the case of N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2002, it was challenged if non-Brahmins can be appointed as a pujari in a temple. The Supreme Court held that the Brahmins do not have the monopoly over-performing puja in a temple. The court also added that non-Brahmins can be appointed as a pujari as long as he is well versed in his job.
