Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
Article 25 of the Constitution of India deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. The Constitution came into force on 26 Jan 1950.
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
Article 25, The Constitution of India.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this article, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this article.
-
Muslim Women's Quest For Equality vs Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi cannot be definitively extracted from this procedural order as the matter remained part-heard. However, the Court's decision to constitute a five-judge bench and hear extensive arguments from diverse stakeholders suggests that the Court recognized the need to comprehensively address the constitutional validity of instant triple talaq and the scope of personal law under the Indian Constitution.
On this article: Freedom of religion and scope of religious practices
-
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Exclusion of women aged 10-50 from Sabarimala unconstitutional.
-
Association For Democratic Reforms vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Electoral Bond Scheme violates Article 19(1)(a) by preventing disclosure of electoral contributions essential to informed voting. Voters have fundamental right to information about political funding as political parties are focal units in electoral system affecting policy outcomes. The purposes cited (curbing black money and protecting donor privacy) do not justify this extensive non-disclosure. Alternative measures like Electoral Trusts, direct banking channels with disclosure at Rs. 20,000+ threshold, and sector-specific audit requirements satisfy the objectives with lesser impact on fundamental rights. Removal of contribution caps in Section 182 of Companies Act is manifestly arbitrary as it fails to distinguish between profit-making and loss-making companies and treats corporations like individuals despite different capacities to influence politics. The right to know trumps donor privacy in balancing analysis as political contributions are public acts affecting public policy and representative democracy.
On this article: Freedom of conscience. Applied in context of whether political contributions are protected expression.
-
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, insofar as it criminalizes consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex in private, violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sexual orientation is an essential attribute of privacy and dignity, and the criminalization of consensual intimate acts between adults is manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory, and an unreasonable restriction on fundamental rights. The State has no legitimate interest in criminalizing such conduct, and constitutional morality, not social morality, must guide interpretation. Section 377 is read down to exclude consensual acts between adults in private while remaining applicable to non-consensual acts, acts involving minors, and bestiality.
On this article: Freedom of religion - cited by intervenors to argue religious values should restrict LGBT rights; Court rejected this argument.
-
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court held that while there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution, LGBTQ+ persons have a constitutional right to enter into abiding cohabitational relationships grounded in Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 25. The Special Marriage Act 1954 cannot be read down to permit same-sex marriages due to semantic impossibilities and interconnected gendered provisions. The Court recognized that existing laws create indirect discriminatory impact on queer couples by denying them access to spousal benefits in employment, succession, adoption, and taxation. The Court declined to issue directions for marriage equality, finding such matters require comprehensive parliamentary action. Instead, the Court directed the Union Government to constitute a high-powered committee to examine the discriminatory impact of existing laws and regulations on same-sex couples and recommend appropriate remedies. Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing laws through harmonious interpretation with the Transgender Persons Act.
On this article: Freedom of conscience and to profess, practice and propagate religion; debated as source of right to choose life partner based on freedom of conscience
-
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The foundational ratio of the judgment is: While the Indian Constitution does not expressly protect a fundamental right to marry (and therefore the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act cannot be compelled to be read in gender-neutral manner to include same-sex couples through judicial reinterpretation), the Constitution protects LGBTQ+ persons' right to enter into abiding relationships with freedom from state interference, dignity, autonomy, and privacy. The state has affirmatively created the institution of marriage and conferred tangible and intangible benefits through it. By systematically excluding LGBTQ+ persons from these benefits while providing them to heterosexual couples, the state engages in indirect discrimination violating Articles 14 and 15. While courts cannot create new legal statuses through interpretation, the state (Union Government and State Governments) is under constitutional obligation to eliminate the discriminatory impact by: (1) undertaking comprehensive examination of all laws and regulations that tie benefits to marital status; (2) ensuring that sexual orientation-based discrimination is removed from all statutory schemes; (3) considering appropriate legislative or administrative measures to recognize LGBTQ+ unions and extend benefits; (4) protecting LGBTQ+ persons from family violence, coercion, and police harassment; (5) not interfering with the right of LGBTQ+ persons to live in intimate relationships free from state coercion. The exact form this takes (marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, administrative extension of benefits) is for Parliament and the state legislatures to determine after appropriate consultation, but the obligation to eliminate discrimination is immediate.
On this article: Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. The Chief Justice argued that freedom of conscience includes the right to judge the moral quality of one's own actions and act upon them, supporting the right to choose a partner. Justices Bhat and Narasimha were skeptical of reading Article 25 so broadly as to encompass all personal choices in such manner.
-
Praneeth K vs University Grants Commission (ugc)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The University Grants Commission has competence under Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution to issue guidelines regarding standards of examination as part of coordination and determination of standards in higher education. Such guidelines are statutory in nature and binding on universities. While the State Disaster Management Authority can take a decision not to hold final year examinations by the prescribed deadline in exercise of powers under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the State cannot promote final year students without holding examinations as such promotion falls outside the jurisdiction of the Disaster Management Act and violates the UGC guidelines which have precedence under Entry 66 of List I.
On this article: Entry 25 provides for 'Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I.' The Court held that education including university education is now a concurrent subject where both State legislature and Parliament have legislative competence, but this is subject to Entry 66 of List I, which gives exclusive competence to the Union regarding coordination and determination of standards.
-
P. A. Inamdar vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court accepted the consolidated hearing structure for all transferred cases, special leave petitions, and writ petitions challenging medical education regulatory frameworks, disposing all applications while granting leave in special leave petitions. This suggests the court's ratio involves recognizing the legitimacy of regulatory oversight in medical education while simultaneously acknowledging the petitioners' right to challenge specific regulatory implementations, ultimately resolving that such challenges would be decided on their individual merits within the framework of constitutional balance between institutional autonomy and public health protection.
On this article: Rights of minorities to establish educational institutions and rights of institutions to manage their own affairs
-
State Of U.P. vs Shiv Kumar Pathak
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While qualifications prescribed by NCTE are binding on States as NCTE is the authorized academic authority under the RTE Act operating within the framework of law made by Parliament on a concurrent subject where Central law prevails per Article 254, the requirement to give weightage to TET marks in the recruitment process, as prescribed in NCTE guidelines dated 11th February 2011, is a directory rather than mandatory requirement. A State may make different provisions for the selection procedure and weightage while ensuring that candidates meet the minimum qualifications prescribed by NCTE. However, any change in selection criteria must be made prospectively through proper procedure and cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate a completed selection process or cancel advertisements already issued, especially when such change occurs during the pendency of litigation and affects the vested rights of candidates who had applied in good faith.
On this article: Education is in the concurrent list, meaning both Central and State governments can legislate. However, Central legislation prevails in case of conflict as per Article 254.
-
State Of U.P. vs Hira Lal Gupta, Secretary To Basic Education Govt. Of U.P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education under Section 23 of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 are binding on State governments and cannot be diluted by State laws on the concurrent subject of education, the requirement for specific weightage to be given to Teacher Eligibility Test marks in the selection process is discretionary and directory in nature rather than mandatory, allowing State governments reasonable flexibility in designing selection methodologies so long as TET qualification remains a minimum requirement. States cannot fundamentally alter selection criteria in a manner that conflicts with Central guidelines on minimum qualifications, but they retain discretion in determining how weightage and other selection parameters are applied, subject to principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and adherence to constitutional mandate.
On this article: Education falls in concurrent list, allowing both Central and State governments to legislate on the subject
-
Kalyani Mathivanan vs K V Keyaraj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
UGC Regulations 2010, though subordinate legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament, are mandatory only for Central Universities and institutions funded by UGC. For State Universities, the Regulations are directory in nature and apply only if the State Government adopts and implements them. Since Tamil Nadu has not adopted the UGC Regulations 2010, they do not apply to Madurai Kamaraj University, and the appointment of Vice-Chancellor must be judged by the standards prescribed in the State University Act and Statutes framed thereunder, not by UGC Regulations. Therefore, the appointment of Dr. Kalyani Mathivanan as Vice-Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University, made in accordance with the Madurai Kamaraj University Act 1965 and Statutes, is valid and cannot be challenged on the ground of non-compliance with UGC Regulations 2010.
On this article: Grants concurrent power to Parliament and State Legislatures over education including universities, subject to Entry 66 List I
-
Society for Un-aided P. School of Raj vs U. O. I
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The majority held that the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 is constitutionally valid and applies to: (i) government schools; (ii) aided schools including aided minority schools; (iii) schools belonging to specified categories; and (iv) unaided non-minority schools. However, Section 12(1)(c) mandating 25% reservation and Section 18(3) regarding transfer of de-recognized students infringe the fundamental freedom guaranteed to unaided minority schools under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and therefore do not apply to such schools. For unaided non-minority schools, Section 12(1)(c) imposing 25% reservation is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) because: (1) education is a charitable activity in nature; (2) removing financial barriers that prevent children from accessing education is in the interest of general public; (3) T.M.A. Pai Foundation recognized that States may require unaided institutions to admit small percentage of weaker sections through conditions of recognition; (4) Section 12(2) provides reimbursement; (5) the provision balances the right to establish educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) with the right of children to education under Article 21A; and (6) the context of elementary education for strengthening social fabric of democracy differs from professional education. The Act is applied prospectively from academic year 2012-13 with principle of severability preserving applicability to other categories of schools.
On this article: Freedom of religion - applied to determine whether RTE Act interferes with religious institutions' right to impart religious education
-
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Shiv Kumar Pathak
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the minimum qualifications for teachers prescribed by NCTE are binding on States under the statutory authority granted under Section 23 of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and Sections 12 and 12A of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, the guidelines issued by NCTE regarding weightage to be given to Teacher Eligibility Test marks in the recruitment process are directory in nature and not mandatory. States are required to ensure candidates possess NCTE-prescribed minimum qualifications including passing the TET examination, but States retain discretion in designing selection procedures and ranking mechanisms for candidates who have qualified the TET, provided such procedures are consistent with maintaining standards and do not arbitrarily exclude qualified candidates.
On this article: Education subject falls in concurrent list; Court noted both Union and States have power but Union law prevails on conflict
-
Mohammad Hashim (dead) Thr. Lrs vs Mahant Suresh Das
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court resolved the competing claims to the disputed Ayodhya land by balancing historical evidence, religious claims, and constitutional principles governing property rights and religious freedom, establishing clear legal ownership and directing appropriate relief to the parties
On this article: Religious freedom and protection of religious institutions and endowments
-
Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U. P. (now Known As U. P. Sunni Central Waqf Board) vs Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman at Rama Janma Bhumi Represented by Next Friend Deoki Nandan Agarwal Is No More and in His Place Triloki Nath Pandey S/o Askrut Pandey
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a disputed land carries profound religious and cultural significance for multiple communities with legitimate historical claims, and evidence does not conclusively establish exclusive ownership, the Supreme Court may invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to partition and allocate the property in a manner that respects the fundamental rights of all communities to profess and practice their respective religions, build their places of worship, and maintain their cultural heritage. Such allocation should aim at achieving substantial justice, promoting communal harmony, and providing equitable remedies including both land allocation and symbolic compensation for any wrongful deprivation.
On this article: Fundamental right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion
-
Nikhil Soni v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Santhara/Sallekhana (Jain fast unto death) is held to be suicide/abetment of suicide under IPC 309/306, not protected by Article 25. Article 21 does not include a right to take one's life in this form. DB (Sunil Ambwani CJ) reportable; heard 23.4.2015. MCP markdown flagged a wrong extracted date from pleading examples, but the body is the Santhara judgment (notices 22.9.2006). Later stayed by the Supreme Court — teach the HC holding against that stay. Do not successor-map IPC 309 to BNS 226 (mapping.csv relation=weak; BNS 226 is a different offence).
On this article: Santhara is held not to be essential religious practice protected by Article 25 (later stayed by SC).
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this article
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this article is quoted.
-
… Even the issue of the validity of the 2012 Rules has not been seriously canvassed at the time of oral submissions. In one of the writ petitions, the ground of violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of India has been taken without making even an attempt to substantiate the same. 45. The petitioners have relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of All–India Federation of Tax Practitioners & Ors. 3 and certain decisions of High Courts and CESTAT. The said decisions apply …
-
… It was urged on behalf of petitioners that the impugned notifications violate the fundamental rights of an unaided minority institution to "establish and administer educational institutions of their choice" protected under Article 30 read with Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, which includes the right to admit students of their own choice. The doctrine of limited Government provides that a citizen's liberty and autonomy is the central notion of the Constitution of India and there is an inherent limitation on the State's involvement in matters of …
-
… which read thus: "(1) The restriction imposed on women aged above 10 and below 50 from trekking the holy hills of Sabarimala and offering worship at Sabarimala Shrine is in accordance with the usage prevalent from time immemorial. (2) Such restriction imposed by the Devaswom Board is not violative of Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. (3) Such restriction is also not violative of the provisions of Hindu Place of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965 since there is no restriction between one section and another section or between one class and another class among the Hindus in the matter of entry …
Questions about Article 25
What have the courts held on Article 25 of the Constitution of India?
Muslim Women's Quest For Equality vs Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind (22 Aug 2017) is the leading judgment on this article among those set out below: Freedom of religion and scope of religious practices. Another 15 judgments on this article are set out below, 15 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Article 25 of the Constitution of India?
In judgments and charge sheets this article is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Article 25, Art. 25, article 25 of the Constitution of India. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this article are set out on this page, beginning with Muslim Women's Quest For Equality vs Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind (22 Aug 2017).
When did Article 25 of the Constitution of India come into force?
Article 25 of the Constitution of India, commonly called freedom of religion, and cited as Article 25, came into force on 26 Jan 1950, having been enacted on 26 Nov 1949. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other articles of the Constitution
- 371D. Special provisions with respect to [the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana1292 words
- 366. Definitions1280 words
- 371A. Special provision with respect to the State of Nagaland1245 words
- 371F. Special provisions with respect to the State of Sikkim1039 words
- 239AA. Special provisions with respect to Delhi1001 words
- 352. Proclamation of Emergency897 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from The Constitution of India in English 2026, the consolidated text published by India Code (item 544213ec-4072-44b2-a6fc-69fb84df2001). English only: the official translations are not reproduced here. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.