When the country was divided in the name of Hindus and Muslims, only by giving more rights to Muslims in the name of minority for vote bank, those who make Hindus of second -class citizens should tell today on the incident of Pahalgam whether today’s murder was done on the basis of religion or not? Ray rama is tight…
– Dr. Nishikant Dubey (@nishikant_dubey) 22 April, 2025
“Shame on secular-Wadi Leader! Come, what can happen, Kashmir with Pakistan-Quiz will be ours. Be patient, this is Modi’s government, whose Home Minister is Amit ShahYesThis is the time to finish 26 to 29 articles of the Constitution, ”he said.
Four articles talk about religious freedom, and cultural and educational rights. ThePrint explains what these articles say and which courts have ruled on them.
Tripling of minority rights
In the 2002 Landmark TMA Pie Foundation case, the Supreme Court discovered the visit how minority rights were included in the Constitution.
It said that on 27 February 1947, several committees were formed to prepare the draft of the Constitution. On the same day, the Advisory Committee formed a sub-committee on minorities for a report on the rights of minorities. In addition, KM Munshi, a member of the Constitution Assembly, suggested to the sub-committee on fundamental rights that some minority rights should also be made a part of fundamental rights.
Munshi then sent a letter to the members of the Minority Sub-Committee recommended that the constitution included some fundamental rights of minorities.
His recommendations talked about allowing all citizens to use their mother tongue and script. It states that “National Minority” – Sor or Linguistic – There are equal rights with other citizens in the construction, control and administration of their own expenses, charitable, religious and social institutions, schools, schools and other educational establishments, which are with free use of their language and practice of their religion.
According to the 2002 Apex Court verdict, this recommendation, among other things, was created in response to historical efforts in a part of the Polish minority treaty, a part of the Poland constitution, Europe and other places to prevent minorities from using or studying their language.
The sub-committee made its recommendations on minority rights. While initially the Constitution Assembly member GB Pant suggested that these rights be made a part of the directions of the state policy, Munshi stuck for his demand for his inclusion in the chapter on fundamental rights, which are contained in Part III between Article 12 and 35.
Article 26
This allows “every religious sect” to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, and to manage its own matters in matters of religion, and for themselves, and to acquire, acquire and administer movable and real estate.
This right is subject to “public system, morality and health”.
When the Constitution Legislative Assembly debated the provisions, Dr. Bribedkar made an amendment to make public orders, morality and right conditional for health. He explained “It is not a purpose to give full rights in these matters related to religion”.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a religious sect should fulfill three conditions: it should be a collection of individuals who must have general belief, general organization and designation by a specific name. Implementing these conditions, the court ruled that Pushtimarg Vaishnav is a religious sect, but not a member of the Swaminarayan sect.
Once it is determined whether a community is a religious sect, the courts then see if an exercise is a “essential religious practice” of the sect, which is determined to offer the scope of security. The court has admitted that only the integral practices of the religious sect are protected.
The interaction between a religious sect and personal dignity rights will also be investigated by a bench of the Non-judge of the Supreme Court, referred to by a bench to hear a big question on trust and fundamental rights, which was dealing with review petitions in the Sabarimala case.
Apart from the Sabarimala case, another petition related to the Dawoodi Bohra community raised similar questions. In a 1962 judgment, the Supreme Court had recognized the community as a religious sect under Article 26, and believed that the boycott was an integral part of the religious structure of the community – which was reducing the Bombay Prevention of the Exclusion Act 1949.
However, in 2023, a bench of the five-judge Constitution referred to the Non-judge Sabarimala Peeth to investigate whether the right to exclude its members of the community could be balanced with other fundamental rights under the Constitution.
It was observed after the 2023 bench that the boycott has many citizens results, Prima Facial affects the fundamental right to live a person’s fundamental right with dignity and the right to live a meaningful life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is also determined to examine the ninth-judge bench whether the word “morality” under Article 26 is to include “constitutional morality”.
Recently, Article 26 has been a thing with the Supreme Court, which hear a batch of petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. The petitioner, among other things, claim that this law violates Article 26.
For example, one of the petitions states that “the bill seeking an alleged secular color in the management of the Waqf Board (including non-Muslim members) is contrary to Article 26 of the Constitution of India”.
Articles 27 and 28
Article 27 prevents the state from imposing taxes on the funds used for maintenance of a particular religion or on the maintenance of a religious sect.
Article 28 times by providing religious instructions to students, fully funded educational institutions. But its section 2 creates an exception to educational institutions administered by the state, but has been established under any settlement or belief, for which it is necessary to provide religious instructions in the institution.
The Supreme Court in a 2002 judgment explained that “the education of religions can also be fully maintained in ‘educational institutions’,” can be fully maintained by the funds of the state “, it should be separated from ‘religious education’, which can be provided in educational institutions built under minorities or Article 28 of Article 28.
In the 2002 judgment, in his consent, Justice DM Dharmadhikari explained that “religious instructions” do not ban the education of different religions from the principles, rituals, observation, ceremonies and methods of worship of a particular sect or sect.
The court said, “The educational study of teaching and the philosophy of any great saint, such as Kabir, Gurak and Mahabhair, was not prohibited by Article 28 (1) of the Constitution,” the court said.
Also read: The NADDA draws the line, but the tricks of the Supreme Court continue to boil within the BJP
Article 29
Article 29 aims to protect cultural and educational rights. It empowers any part of the citizens who have a different language, script or culture, for the protection of the same.
Section of this article 2 only placed in the state on the basis of religion, race, caste or language and gives the right not to deny entry into state-assistance institutions. Therefore, once a minority institution seeks government assistance, it becomes subject to section 2 of this article.
In the 2002 Landmark TMA Pie case, the Supreme Court stated that this provision does not mention any specific religion, even if the marginal note of the article refers to the interests of minorities.
Article 29 is often interpreted with Article 30 of the Constitution, which empowers minorities to establish and administer educational institutions. It protects both religious and linguistic minorities. Section 2 of the provision also prevents the government from discriminating against any educational institution, which is managed by a minority community, while providing assistance to educational institutions.
For example, in the TMA PAI case, the Supreme Court ruled that as thinking under Article 30 of the State Government or University Constitution, in view of the rights of minorities to administer the educational institutions of its choice, in view of the rights of minorities, the rights of minorities may not be entitled to interfere with that right.
However, it was clarified that the moment aid is obtained or taken by a minority educational institution, which will be controlled by Article 29 (2) and then he would not be able to deny admission based on religion, race, caste, language or any of them. In other words, it will not be able to give preference to students of its community.
(Edited by Ajit Tiwari)
Also read: SC lawyers demand contempt action against Nishikant for ‘derogatory’ comment to Attorney General