Why in News? Article 26 of the Indian Constitution was recently in news regarding the Waqf Board amendment bill 2024.

 Article 26 of the Indian Constitution deals with the freedom to manage religious affairs. It grants every religious denomination or any section thereof certain rights to manage their religious affairs.

Article 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 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.

Scope of Article 26:

Establishment and Maintenance of Institutions (Clause (a)):

• Religious denominations have the right to set up institutions for religious and charitable purposes.
• This includes temples, mosques, churches, educational institutions, hospitals, etc.

Management of Religious Affairs (Clause (b)):

• Denominations can manage their own affairs in matters of religion.
• This autonomy is crucial for the practice and propagation of religion without external interference.

 Ownership and Acquisition of Property (Clause (c)):

• Religious groups have the right to own and acquire both movable and immovable property.
• This enables them to possess assets necessary for religious and charitable activities.

Administration of Property (Clause (d)):

• Religious denominations can administer their property in accordance with the law.
• This ensures that their assets are managed effectively and legally.

Limitations of Article 26:

Public Order, Morality, and Health:

• The rights under Article 26 are not absolute and are subject to public order, morality, and health.
• This means that any religious practice that disrupts public order, violates moral standards, or poses a health risk can be regulated by the state.

Legal Compliance:

• While religious denominations have the right to administer their property, they must do so in accordance with the law.
• This ensures that their activities do not contravene the legal framework of the country.

Judicial Interpretation:

• The judiciary has the power to interpret the scope and limitations of Article 26.
• Courts have often played a crucial role in balancing religious freedoms with other fundamental rights and state interests.

Case Law Analysis: Shirur Mutt Case

• Case Name: The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954 AIR 282)

Facts:

• The case involved the Shri Shirur Mutt, a religious institution in Madras.
• The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, gave the state extensive control over religious institutions, including financial and administrative matters.

Issues:

• Whether the provisions of the Act infringed upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court held that the Act, in its entirety, was not invalid, but certain provisions did infringe upon the rights of religious denominations under Articles 25 and 26.
• The Court stated that while the state can regulate secular activities associated with religious practices, it cannot interfere in purely religious matters.

Key Points:

Definition of Religious Denomination:

• The Court defined a religious denomination as a collection of individuals with a common faith, organization, and distinctive name.

Matters of Religion:

• The Court distinguished between religious practices (which are protected) and secular activities associated with religion (which can be regulated).

 Autonomy in Religious Affairs:

• The Court affirmed that religious denominations have the autonomy to manage their own affairs in matters of religion without state interference.

Impact:

• The Shirur Mutt case set a significant precedent in interpreting the scope and limitations of Article 26.
• It reinforced the protection of religious practices while allowing the state to regulate secular aspects associated with religion.

Conclusion:

Article 26 provides substantial autonomy to religious denominations in managing their religious affairs, establishing and maintaining institutions, owning property, and administering such property. However, this autonomy is not absolute and is subject to public order, morality, health, and compliance with the law. Judicial interpretation, as seen in the Shirur Mutt case, plays a crucial role in delineating the boundaries of these rights, ensuring a balance between religious freedoms and state interests.