Article 26 of Indian Constitution Part2

Summary

This lecture explores Article 26 of the Indian Constitution, focusing on religious denomination rights. It discusses pivotal cases like S.P. Mittal v. Union of India, defining a religious denomination and its self-governance rights. The lecture also delves into the Sabarimala Judgment, examining the conflict between religious practices and constitutional guarantees, particularly gender equality. The Supreme Court's decision to strike down restrictions on women's entry into the Sabarimala Temple highlights the balance between religious freedom and constitutional rights.

Takeaways

• 📜 Article 26 of the Indian Constitution grants every religious denomination the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage internal religious affairs, and acquire and administer property.
• 🏛️ In the case of SP Mittal vs Union of India, the Supreme Court defined a religious denomination as a collective with common faith, beliefs, doctrines, practices, rituals, and ceremonies.
• 🏆 Isma Faruki vs Union of India upheld the right of religious denominations to self-govern in religious matters, including the administration of their properties.
• 🚫 Bal Patil vs Union of India emphasized that the government cannot take over a temple trust without evidence of illegal actions.
• 🚷 The Sabarimala Judgment (Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala) questioned the constitutionality of restricting women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala Temple.
• 🙅‍♀️ The Supreme Court, in a 4:1 verdict, found the restriction on women's entry unconstitutional and struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Authorization of Entry Act (KPW Act).
• 🛐 The majority opinion held that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination and that the exclusion of women lacked scriptural justification.
• 🚫 The court declared that Rule 3(b) of the KPW Act was unconstitutional as it violated Part III of the Constitution, which includes rights to equality and non-discrimination.
• 🚷 Justice D. Chandru equated the social exclusion of women based on menstrual status to a form of untouchability, which is unconstitutional and violates the right to privacy.
• ❌ Justice Indu Malhotra dissented, arguing that the petitioners lacked standing and that the Sabarimala worshippers qualified as a religious denomination deserving protection under Article 26.
• ⚖️ The Sabarimala case illustrates the delicate balance between religious freedom and constitutional guarantees of equality and individual rights.

Q & A

What does Article 26 of the Indian Constitution deal with?

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution deals with the rights of every religious denomination, including the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage internal religious affairs, and acquire and administer property in accordance with law.

What is the significance of the SP Mittal case in interpreting Article 26?

The SP Mittal case defined a religious denomination as a collective of individuals unified by a system of beliefs that distinguish them as members of a distinct religious community. It emphasized common faith, beliefs, doctrines, practices, rituals, and ceremonies as essential characteristics.

How does the Isma Faruki case relate to the rights of religious denominations?

In the Isma Faruki case, the Supreme Court upheld the right of religious denominations to self-govern in religious matters, including the administration of its properties.

What principle did the Bal Patil case underscore regarding religious institutions?

The Bal Patil case underscored that the government could not take over a temple trust without evidence of actions contrary to the law, emphasizing the autonomy of religious institutions.

What was the primary issue in the Sabarimala Judgment case?

The primary issue in the Sabarimala Judgment case was the constitutionality of restricting the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala Temple, which raised questions about religious practices and traditions versus constitutional guarantees, including gender equality.

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Sabarimala Judgment case?

The Supreme Court, in a 4-1 verdict, held that the restrictions on the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala temple were unconstitutional and struck down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Authorization of Entry Act (KPW Act).

How did the majority opinion in the Sabarimala case view the devotees of Lord Ayyappa?

The majority opinion held that the devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not constitute a separate religious denomination but were part of the Hindu fold.

What was Justice Indu Malhotra's dissenting opinion in the Sabarimala case?

Justice Indu Malhotra's dissenting opinion noted that the case should fail for lack of standing by the petitioners. She also held that the devotees of the Sabarimala Temple satisfied the requirements of being a religious denomination and could avail the protections of Article 26.

What did the court consider as a form of untouchability in the Sabarimala case?

The court considered the social exclusion of women based on physiological attributes like menstrual status as a form of untouchability, following notions of purity and pollution, which serve to stigmatize individuals.

What was the outcome of the review petition in the Sabarimala case?

The review petition led to the case being referred to a larger bench for adjudication, with the majority opinion confirming the earlier decision, and Justices RF Nariman and D Chandra dissenting.

How does the Sabarimala case exemplify the balance between religious freedoms and constitutional rights?

The Sabarimala case exemplifies the delicate balance between religious freedoms and constitutional rights by acknowledging the significance of religious freedom under Article 26 while also emphasizing that this right is not absolute and is subject to public order, morality, and health.