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.

Outlines

00:00

📜 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.

05:01

🏛️ 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.

Keywords

💡Article 26

Article 26 of the Indian Constitution is the key focus of the video. It delineates the rights given to 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. The video uses this article to frame discussions on religious freedom and the legal cases that have shaped its interpretation.

💡Religious Denomination

A religious denomination, as defined by the Supreme Court in the S.P. Mittal case, is a collective of individuals unified by a system of beliefs that distinguishes them as members of a distinct religious community. The video uses this term to discuss the rights of such communities to self-governance and manage their properties, as highlighted in various legal cases.

💡S.P. Mittal Case

The S.P. Mittal versus Union of India case is a landmark judgment that defined what constitutes a religious denomination. It emphasized common faith, beliefs, doctrines, practices, rituals, and ceremonies. The video uses this case to illustrate the legal criteria for recognizing a group as a religious denomination.

💡Isma Faruki Case

The Isma Faruki versus Union of India case is mentioned to uphold the right of religious denominations to self-govern in religious matters, including the administration of properties. This case is used in the video to show how the courts have protected the autonomy of religious groups.

💡Bal Patil Case

The Bal Patil versus Union of India case underscores the principle that the government cannot take over a temple trust without evidence of illegal actions. The video uses this case to discuss the limits of governmental interference in religious institutions.

💡Sabaraimala Judgment

The Sabarimala Judgment, or Indian Young Lawyers Association versus State of Kerala case, is a pivotal case discussed in the video. It involves the constitutionality of restricting women of menstruating age from entering the Sabarimala Temple. The judgment exemplifies the balance between religious practices and constitutional rights, particularly gender equality.

💡Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Authorization of Entry Act (KPW Act)

The Kerala Hindu Places of Worship Authorization of Entry Act (KPW Act) is a legislation that the video discusses in the context of the Sabarimala case. Rule 3(b) of this act, which prohibited women of a certain age group from entering the temple, was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, illustrating the tension between religious customs and legal equality.

💡Unconstitutional

The term 'unconstitutional' is used in the video to describe actions or laws that violate the principles of the Indian Constitution. The Sabarimala temple's restriction on women's entry was deemed unconstitutional, showing how the judiciary interprets and upholds constitutional rights.

💡Gender Equality

Gender equality is a constitutional guarantee discussed in the video, particularly in the context of the Sabarimala case. The court's decision to strike down the restriction on women's entry into the temple highlights the importance of gender equality as a fundamental right.

💡Constitutional Morality

Constitutional morality refers to the principles of justice, fairness, and equality that underpin the Constitution of India. The video discusses how social exclusion based on physiological attributes like menstruation status violates constitutional morality, as it stigmatizes individuals.

💡Right to Privacy

The right to privacy is a constitutional right mentioned in the video in relation to the menstrual status of women. Justice D. Chandru's opinion in the Sabarimala case held that excluding women based on their menstrual status violated their privacy and dignity, which are protected by the Constitution.

💡Article 17

Article 17 of the Indian Constitution prohibits untouchability, and the video connects this to the Sabarimala case by arguing that the exclusion of women based on their menstrual status is akin to untouchability and is therefore unconstitutional. This article is used to emphasize the constitutional protection against discrimination.

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