[Cites 0, Cited by 97]
[Article 26]
[Constitution]
Constitution Subarticle
Article 26(d) in Constitution of India
Article 26(a) Right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.The right to establish and maintain religious institutions is given to every religious institution. The word establishes and maintains 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 held 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.
Article 26(b) Right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. Every 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.
Article 26(c) details the right to own and acquire movable and immovable property. The state can regulate the property of a religious denomination by law.
Article 26(d) is on the right 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.
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.
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.ReferencesIndianKanoonWikipediaBlog Ipleaders