Article 25 and Religious Freedom: Legal Battles in India

Article 25 and religious freedom in India remain at the heart of legal battles in 2025, balancing individual rights with public order and secularism. From the Sabarimala temple entry case to hijab bans, the Supreme Court continues to interpret Article 25 amidst evolving social norms. This blog examines key legal battles, constitutional challenges, and the future of religious freedom in India.

Introduction

Article 25 and religious freedom are cornerstone principles in the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing every individual the right to profess, practice, and propagate their religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. However, this fundamental right has been the epicenter of numerous legal battles, as courts strive to balance religious freedom with secularism, social reform, and equality. In 2025, landmark cases such as the Sabarimala temple entry dispute, the hijab ban controversy, and debates over anti-conversion laws continue to shape the interpretation of Article 25. This blog explores the constitutional framework of Article 25, key legal battles in India, and the ongoing challenges to religious freedom, offering critical insights for Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams.

Join Telegram Community

Join WhatsApp Community

Explore Courses

Understanding Article 25: The Constitutional Framework

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, under the Fundamental Rights, states: “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.” This right is not absolute, as Article 25(2) allows the State to regulate or restrict religious practices for social welfare, public order, or to reform religious institutions, creating a delicate balance between individual rights and state intervention.

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted Article 25 through the lens of the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test, a judicial doctrine established in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954). In this case, the Court examined the management of a Hindu monastery and held that only practices essential to a religion are protected under Article 25, while the State can regulate non-essential practices for public interest. The Shirur Mutt case set a precedent for determining the scope of religious freedom, but its application has often sparked controversy, as seen in recent legal battles.

Key Legal Battles Involving Article 25 and Religious Freedom

1. The Sabarimala Temple Entry Case: Tradition vs. Equality

One of the most significant legal battles over Article 25 and religious freedom is the Sabarimala temple entry case. In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), a group of petitioners challenged the traditional ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, a practice rooted in the belief that the deity, Lord Ayyappa, is a celibate, and menstruating women would disrupt his sanctity. The Supreme Court, in a 4:1 verdict, struck down the ban, ruling that it violated Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex), and Article 25, as it denied women their right to practice their religion. The majority, led by then-Chief Justice Dipak Misra, held that the ban was not an essential religious practice under the ERP test, and thus not protected under Article 25. Justice Indu Malhotra, the sole dissenter, argued that the practice was essential to the Ayyappa devotees’ faith and that courts should not interfere in religious matters.

The decision sparked widespread protests in Kerala, with conservative groups arguing that it undermined religious tradition. In 2019, the case was referred to a larger seven-judge bench to address broader questions about the balance between religious freedom and gender equality, including issues like female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community and the entry of women into mosques. As of March 2025, the larger bench’s verdict is still pending, but the Sabarimala case remains a landmark in the legal battles over Article 25 and religious freedom, highlighting the tension between tradition and constitutional rights.

2. The Hijab Ban Controversy: Religious Expression vs. Uniformity

Another pivotal legal battle involving Article 25 and religious freedom is the hijab ban controversy in Karnataka. In Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka (2022), Muslim female students challenged a Karnataka government order banning the hijab in educational institutions with prescribed uniforms. The Karnataka High Court upheld the ban, ruling that the hijab was not an essential religious practice in Islam under the ERP test. The Court further held that the State’s uniform policy was a reasonable restriction under Article 25, prioritizing public order and uniformity over religious expression. The decision relied on Islamic texts and precedents, concluding that wearing the hijab was a matter of personal choice rather than a mandatory religious practice.

The ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, which delivered a split verdict in Resham v. State of Karnataka (2022). Justice Hemant Gupta upheld the Karnataka High Court’s decision, emphasizing the State’s authority to enforce uniformity in educational institutions. In contrast, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia struck down the ban, arguing that the hijab was a matter of personal choice and religious freedom under Article 25, and that the ban disproportionately affected Muslim women, violating Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion and sex). The split verdict led to the case being referred to a larger bench, and as of March 2025, the matter remains unresolved. This legal battle underscores the ongoing struggle to define the scope of Article 25 and religious freedom in the context of secular education and gender rights.

3. Anti-Conversion Laws: Freedom to Propagate Religion

Article 25 explicitly protects the right to “propagate” religion, which includes the right to convert others to one’s faith. However, this aspect has been contentious due to anti-conversion laws enacted by several states, such as the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, and similar statutes in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. These laws criminalize conversions deemed to involve force, fraud, or inducement, often targeting interfaith marriages and alleging “love jihad,” a term used by some groups to describe alleged forced conversions of Hindu women by Muslim men. Critics argue that these laws infringe on Article 25 and religious freedom by restricting the right to propagate and convert, disproportionately affecting Christians and Muslims.

In Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2018), commonly known as the Hadiya case, the Supreme Court addressed this issue. Hadiya, a Hindu woman who converted to Islam and married a Muslim man, faced annulment of her marriage by the Kerala High Court, which labeled it as “love jihad.” The Supreme Court overturned the annulment, affirming Hadiya’s right to choose her religion and partner under Article 25 and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The Court emphasized that freedom of conscience includes the right to convert, and the State cannot interfere in personal choices without evidence of coercion.

Despite this precedent, legal battles over anti-conversion laws continue in 2025. In Citizens for Justice and Peace v. State of Uttar Pradesh, a public interest litigation filed in 2021, petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law, arguing that it violates Article 25 by imposing stringent requirements like prior approval for conversions and harsh penalties for alleged violations. The Supreme Court has yet to deliver a definitive ruling, but the case highlights the tension between religious freedom and state regulation, a key issue under Article 25.

4. Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath Dispute: Religious Sites and Worship Rights

The Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath dispute in Varanasi is another significant legal battle involving Article 25 and religious freedom. The Gyanvapi Mosque, located adjacent to the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, became the subject of controversy when Hindu petitioners claimed in 2021 that the mosque was built over a pre-existing temple destroyed during Mughal rule. In 2022, a Varanasi court ordered a survey of the mosque premises, which found a structure claimed by Hindus to be a Shivling (a sacred symbol of Lord Shiva) and by Muslims to be a fountain. The Hindu petitioners sought the right to worship at the site under Article 25, arguing that their religious freedom entitled them to access the Shivling.

The Muslim side, represented by the Anjuman Intezamia Masjid Committee, countered that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, protects the mosque’s status as it stood on August 15, 1947. The 1991 Act prohibits changes to the religious character of places of worship, except for the Ayodhya dispute, which was resolved in 2019. The case escalated to the Supreme Court, which in 2022 directed that the mosque be protected while allowing the Varanasi court to continue proceedings. As of March 2025, the Supreme Court is examining whether the 1991 Act bars such claims and whether the right to worship under Article 25 extends to disputed sites. This legal battle reflects the broader challenge of reconciling religious freedom with historical claims, especially in a secular state like India where communal tensions often complicate such disputes.

Legal Challenges in Interpreting Article 25

The legal battles over Article 25 and religious freedom reveal several challenges in its interpretation and application in 2025:

1. The Essential Religious Practices Test

The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test, established in the Shirur Mutt case, has been a cornerstone of Article 25 jurisprudence, but its application is often subjective. In the Sabarimala case, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban on women was not an essential practice, while in the hijab case, the Karnataka High Court held that the hijab was not essential to Islam. Critics argue that the ERP test allows judges to act as “theologians,” determining what is essential to a religion, which can undermine religious freedom. For example, the Sabarimala verdict was criticized for overlooking the Ayyappa devotees’ belief in the deity’s celibacy, while the hijab ruling was seen as dismissive of Muslim women’s lived experiences. In 2025, the Supreme Court’s larger bench in the Sabarimala review is expected to revisit the ERP test, potentially redefining its scope to better protect religious diversity.

2. Balancing Religious Freedom with Public Order

Article 25 is subject to public order, morality, and health, creating a tension between individual rights and state interests. In the hijab ban case, the Karnataka High Court prioritized public order and uniformity over religious expression, while in the Sabarimala case, the Supreme Court emphasized gender equality over tradition. These legal battles highlight the challenge of defining “reasonable restrictions” under Article 25, a debate that continues to evolve in 2025 as courts navigate secularism and social reform. For instance, the hijab case raises questions about whether uniformity in schools justifies restricting religious symbols, a question the Supreme Court has yet to definitively answer.

3. Communal Tensions and Political Influence

Legal battles over Article 25 and religious freedom are often influenced by communal tensions and political agendas. The Gyanvapi dispute, for example, has been politicized, with some groups using it to fuel Hindu-Muslim tensions, especially after the Ayodhya verdict in 2019, which awarded the disputed site to Hindus for a Ram temple. Similarly, anti-conversion laws in states like Uttar Pradesh have been criticized as tools to target minorities, reflecting a broader trend of majoritarianism. In 2025, the judiciary faces the challenge of adjudicating these cases impartially, ensuring that religious freedom is not undermined by political pressures or communal polarization.

4. Intersection with Other Fundamental Rights

Article 25 often intersects with other rights, such as Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (non-discrimination), and Article 21 (right to life and liberty). In the Sabarimala case, the Supreme Court balanced religious freedom with gender equality, ruling that the ban on women violated Article 14 and Article 15. In the Hadiya case, the Court linked Article 25 to personal autonomy, affirming Hadiya’s right to convert and marry as part of her Article 21 rights. These intersections complicate legal battles, requiring courts to adopt a nuanced approach to protect religious freedom without violating other constitutional guarantees, a challenge that remains critical in 2025.

The legal battles over Article 25 and religious freedom in 2025 are deeply influenced by India’s social and cultural landscape. Communal tensions, exacerbated by polarizing political rhetoric, continue to challenge religious harmony. The rise of social media has amplified hate speech and misinformation, often targeting minorities and fueling disputes like the Gyanvapi case. For example, posts on X in 2024 highlighted how viral videos claiming historical “proof” of temples beneath mosques escalated tensions in Varanasi, underscoring the role of digital platforms in shaping public perception.

At the same time, social reform movements advocating for gender equality and inclusivity push for a reinterpretation of religious practices in line with modern values. The Sabarimala case, for instance, was driven by women’s rights activists seeking equal access to religious spaces, while the hijab case reflects broader debates about Muslim women’s agency in a secular society. These movements highlight the evolving nature of religious freedom, as India grapples with its pluralistic identity amidst majoritarian pressures.

Global Perspectives on Religious Freedom

Globally, religious freedom is protected under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which India has ratified. These international standards mandate that restrictions on religious freedom be proportionate and necessary, a principle India sometimes struggles to uphold. In the United States, the First Amendment prohibits the State from interfering in religious practices unless there is a compelling state interest, as seen in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a city ordinance banning animal sacrifice by the Santeria faith, ruling that it targeted a specific religious practice, violating free exercise of religion.

In Europe, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has upheld restrictions on religious symbols, such as the headscarf, in cases like Sahin v. Turkey (2005), where the Court ruled that a ban on headscarves in universities was justified to maintain secularism in public spaces. This mirrors India’s hijab ban ruling, but India’s legal battles are more complex due to its diverse religious landscape and history of communal tensions. In 2025, India can learn from global standards, ensuring that restrictions on Article 25 and religious freedom align with ICCPR principles, balancing state interests with individual rights.

The Way Forward: Balancing Religious Freedom and Secularism

Addressing the legal battles over Article 25 and religious freedom in 2025 requires a multi-faceted approach:

Revisiting the ERP Test: The Supreme Court should reconsider the Essential Religious Practices test, adopting a more inclusive approach that respects religious diversity and avoids judicial overreach into theological matters, as seen in the Sabarimala and hijab cases.
Strengthening Secularism: The State must uphold secularism by ensuring that religious freedom is not used to perpetuate discrimination or communal tensions, as evident in the Gyanvapi and anti-conversion disputes.
Promoting Dialogue: Interfaith dialogue and public education can reduce communal tensions, fostering a culture of tolerance and mutual respect across religious communities.
Judicial Clarity: The Supreme Court should provide clear guidelines on the scope of Article 25, particularly in unresolved cases like the hijab ban and Sabarimala review, to ensure consistency in legal battles and protect religious freedom.
Protecting Minorities: Robust enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and hate speech regulations can safeguard minorities from religious persecution, ensuring that Article 25 benefits all communities equally, especially in the context of anti-conversion laws.

Relevance for Judiciary Aspirants

For Judiciary, APO, and JLO aspirants preparing for 2025 exams, Article 25 and religious freedom is a critical topic:

Prelims: Expect questions on Article 25, the Sabarimala case, the hijab ban verdict, the Places of Worship Act, 1991, or the Hadiya case.
Mains: Discuss the balance between religious freedom and secularism, referencing Article 25, Article 14, and landmark cases like Shirur Mutt, Sabarimala, and Resham v. State of Karnataka.
Interviews: Highlight the judiciary’s role in protecting religious freedom while promoting social reform, citing ongoing legal battles like the Gyanvapi dispute and their implications for secularism.

Conclusion

Article 25 and religious freedom in India remain a contested terrain in 2025, with legal battles like the Sabarimala temple entry, hijab ban, anti-conversion laws, and Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath dispute shaping the discourse. These cases highlight the challenge of balancing individual rights with public order, secularism, and social reform, often against the backdrop of communal tensions and political influences. As the Supreme Court continues to interpret Article 25, its decisions will play a pivotal role in defining the contours of religious freedom in a diverse and dynamic society. For legal aspirants, understanding these legal battles is essential to grasp the intersection of law, religion, and social justice in India, making this a must-know topic for 2025 exams.

Call-to-Action

Want to stay updated on constitutional law topics like Article 25 and religious freedom? Join Doon Law Mentor’s Courses for expert guidance. Follow @doonlawmentor on Instagram for the latest updates!

FAQs

What does Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantee?
Article 25 and religious freedom guarantee the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
What is the Essential Religious Practices test?
The ERP test, established in the Shirur Mutt case (1954), determines whether a practice is integral to a religion, thus protected under Article 25 and religious freedom.
What was the Sabarimala temple entry case about?
The Sabarimala case (2018) struck down the ban on women aged 10-50 entering the temple, ruling it violated Article 25, Article 14, and Article 15 by denying gender equality.
What is the status of the hijab ban case in 2025?
The hijab ban case remains unresolved, with a split verdict in Resham v. State of Karnataka (2022) referred to a larger Supreme Court bench for final adjudication.
How do anti-conversion laws impact Article 25?
Anti-conversion laws in states like Uttar Pradesh restrict the right to propagate religion under Article 25, often targeting interfaith marriages and minorities.
What is the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath dispute?
The Gyanvapi dispute involves Hindu claims to worship at the mosque site, raising questions about Article 25 and the Places of Worship Act, 1991, with the case pending in the Supreme Court.
How does Article 25 balance religious freedom with public order?
Article 25 allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions for public order, morality, or health, as seen in the hijab ban ruling prioritizing uniformity.
What global standards apply to religious freedom in India?
India is bound by Article 18 of the UDHR and ICCPR, which protect religious freedom but allow proportionate restrictions for public interest.
How do communal tensions affect Article 25 legal battles?
Communal tensions often politicize legal battles like the Gyanvapi dispute, challenging the judiciary’s ability to uphold religious freedom impartially.
Why is Article 25 important for Judiciary aspirants?
It involves constitutional law, secularism, and social justice, making Article 25 and religious freedom a key topic for prelims, mains, and interviews in 2025 exams.