Article 26 of Indian Constitution Part2
Summary
TLDRThis 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
- đ 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.
- đïž 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.
- đ Isma Faruki vs Union of India upheld the right of religious denominations to self-govern in religious matters, including the administration of their properties.
- đ« Bal Patil vs Union of India emphasized that the government cannot take over a temple trust without evidence of illegal actions.
- đ· 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.
- đ ââïž 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).
- đ 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.
- đ« 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.
- đ· 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.
- â 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.
- âïž 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.
Outlines
đ Article 26 of Indian Constitution: Rights of Religious Denominations
This paragraph discusses Article 26 of the Indian Constitution, which provides rights to every religious denomination, including the establishment and maintenance of institutions for religious and charitable purposes, management of internal religious affairs, and acquisition and administration of property according to law. The paragraph references pivotal cases like S.P. Mittal vs Union of India, which defined a religious denomination, and Isma Faruki vs Union of India, which upheld the right of religious denominations to self-govern. It also mentions the Sabarimala Judgment, which dealt with the constitutionality of restricting entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala Temple. The Supreme Court's decision in this case struck down the restriction as unconstitutional, emphasizing that the devotees did not constitute a separate religious denomination and that the exclusion of women lacked scriptural justification.
đïž Balancing Religious Freedoms and Constitutional Rights: The Sabarimala Case
The second paragraph delves deeper into the Sabarimala case, highlighting the debate over religious practices versus constitutional guarantees, such as gender equality. It discusses the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Authorization of Entry Act, which prohibited women between the ages of 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Temple. The court's majority opinion, including Justice D. Chandru, argued that the exclusion was unconstitutional and akin to untouchability, violating the dignity and privacy rights of women. In contrast, Justice Indu Malhotra's dissenting opinion suggested that the petitioners lacked standing and that the temple's worshippers could be considered a religious denomination deserving of Article 26 protections. The paragraph also notes the review petition that led to the case being referred to a larger bench for adjudication, emphasizing the complex interplay between religious freedom and constitutional rights.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄArticle 26
đĄReligious Denomination
đĄS.P. Mittal Case
đĄIsma Faruki Case
đĄBal Patil Case
đĄSabaraimala Judgment
đĄKerala Hindu Places of Worship Authorization of Entry Act (KPW Act)
đĄUnconstitutional
đĄGender Equality
đĄConstitutional Morality
đĄRight to Privacy
đĄArticle 17
Highlights
Exploration of Article 26 of the Indian Constitution, focusing on religious rights.
Article 26 grants rights to religious denominations to establish institutions, manage internal affairs, and acquire property.
SP Mittal vs Union of India case defined a religious denomination and its characteristics.
Common faith, beliefs, doctrines, practices, rituals, and ceremonies are essential for a religious denomination.
Isma Faruki vs Union of India upheld the right of religious denominations to self-govern.
Bal Patil vs Union of India emphasized government cannot take over temple trusts without legal evidence.
Introduction of the Sabarimala Judgment and its impact on Article 26.
Sabarimala case involved the constitutionality of restricting women's entry based on age.
Supreme Court's 4:1 verdict ruled the restrictions on women's entry in Sabarimala temple as unconstitutional.
Devotees of Lord Ayyappa do not constitute a separate religious denomination, according to the majority opinion.
Exclusion of women without scriptural evidence cannot be considered an essential religious practice.
Rule 3(b) of the KPW Act was deemed unconstitutional for violating Part III of the Constitution.
Social exclusion of women based on physiological attributes is compared to untouchability.
Justice D Chandru's opinion links menstrual status privacy to constitutional morality.
Justice Indu Malhotra's dissenting opinion argues for standing by the petitioners and religious denomination rights.
The case was referred to a larger bench for adjudication after a review petition.
The decision highlights the balance between religious freedom and constitutional guarantees of equality.
The judiciary's role in interpreting Article 26 of the Indian Constitution is emphasized.
Transcripts
dear students trust all of you are doing
good in this video lecture I will delve
into the intricacies of article 26 of
Indian constitution if you recall what
we discussed in the last video article
26 describes the rights bestowed upon
every religious denomination
specifically it grants the right to
establish and maintain institutions for
religious and charitable purposes manage
internal affairs concerning religion on
and acquire property and administer such
property in accordance with the law a
pivotal case shaping our understanding
of article 26 is sp mital versus Union
of India air 1983 SC
1729 where the Supreme Court defined a
religious denomination as a collective
of individuals unified by a system of
beliefs distinguish ing them as members
of a distinct religious community the
court emphasized common Faith beliefs
doctrines practices rituals and
ceremonies as essential characteristics
that set a religious denomination apart
in isma faruki versus Union of India a
1995 Supreme Court 605 the Supreme Court
upheld that the right of Rel religious
denomination to self-govern in religious
matters including the administration of
its properties Bal patil versus Union of
India further underscored this principle
emphasizing that the government could
not take over a temple trust without
evidence of actions contrary to the law
in this video we will also explore the
shabarimala Judgment that is Indian
young Lawyers Association and others
versus state of Kerala 2017 10 SEC 689
and will explore how the scope of right
to religion with respect to article 26
got altered the issue involved in the
case was primarily with respect to the
entry of women of menstruating age into
shabala Temple which is dedicated to
Lord aapa the case raised questions
about about religious practices and
traditions versus constitutional
guarantees including gender equality the
court was called upon to determine the
constitutionality of rule 3
clb of the Kerala Hindu places of
worship authorization of Entry act 1965
herein after kpw act which prohibited
women of menstruating age that is
between 10 to 50 years from entering the
shabala temple devoted to Lord aapa and
to issue directions the temple
authorities and local government
Representatives facilitating such entry
the Supreme Court you know 4 is to one
verdict held that the restrictions upon
the entry of women between the ages of
10 to 15 into the shabarimala temple was
unconstitutional and struck down rule
three CLA B of kpw act the court further
passed directions to ensure the safety
of women pilgrims entering the shrine
the majority held that the devotees of
Lord aapa did not constitute a separate
religious denomination but were a part
of the Hindu fold and that in the
absence of any scriptural or textual
evidence justifying the same the
exclusion of women could not be
considered to be as an essential
religious practice the opinion also
observed that the rule three close B was
Ultra virus the aim of kpw act which was
to reform and open public Hindu places
to all people the court further declared
that the rule three CLA B of kpw rules
was unconstitutional for being violative
of part three of the Constitution of
India the majority of Judges including
Justice D chandru further observed that
the social exclusion of women based on
physiological attributes like menstrual
status was comparable to a form of
untouchability following Notions of
Purity and pollution which serve to
stigmatize individuals and could not be
justified in the schemes of
constitutional morality besides being
explicitly prohibited under article 17
with reference to the right to privacy
Justice D Chandra in his opinion held
that the menstrual status of women would
be an intrinsic part of her privacy he
further opined that imposing
exclusionary disabilities based on
menstrual status violated the Dignity of
women which was guarant
by the Constitution whereas Justice indu
Malhotra in her descending opinion noted
that the case should fail for lack of
standing by the petitioners she also
held that ipens or worshippers of
shabala Temple satisfied the
requirements of being a religious
denomination and therefore could Avail
the protections of article 26 she
further held that the limited restrict
itions on the entry of women would not
be violative of part three of
constitution you also need to know that
after a review petition review petition
civil number
3358
sl28 in repetition civil number
37326 was heard this case was referred
to a larger bench for adjudication chief
justice AR GOI Justice am kilker and
Justice indu Malhotra issued the
majority opinion confirming with Justice
RF niman and Justice D Chandra
dissenting a preliminary question was
raised as to whether a reference to a
larger bench was maintainable in a
review petition which was answered in a
affirmative by the N judge bench of the
Court the decision raised a complex
interplay between religious practices
and constitutional rights the court
while acknowledging the significance of
religious freedom under article 26
underscored that the right is not
absolute and is subject to public order
morality and health the shabala case is
just one example of the delicate balance
that must be maintained between
religious freedoms and constitutional
guarantees of equality and individual
rights through this video lecture I hope
you understand the judiciary's role in
interpreting the article 26 of Indian
constitution thank you
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)