Article 26(a) gives every religious denomination, or any section of it, the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.
This right belongs to a religious denomination, not merely to an individual. A religious denomination generally means a group with a common faith, common organisation and distinct identity.
Article 26(a) protects the right to create and continue institutions such as temples, mathas, mosques, churches, gurudwaras, monasteries, religious trusts, dharmashalas, charitable hospitals and welfare institutions connected with religious or charitable purposes.
Scope
Article 26(a) protects two connected rights.
Establish means the right to create or found an institution.
Maintain means the right to preserve, support and continue that institution for religious or charitable purposes.
However, this right is not absolute. Article 26 is subject to:
• Public order
• Morality
• Health
This means a denomination cannot claim protection for activities that disturb public order, violate public morality or harm health.
Difference from Article 25
Article 25 protects individual religious freedom. It gives every person the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion.
Article 26 protects the collective institutional rights of religious denominations.
The distinction is:
• Article 25: individual religious freedom
• Article 26: denominational and institutional religious freedom
State Regulation
Article 26(a) does not make religious institutions completely immune from State regulation.
The State can regulate secular and administrative matters such as property management, financial administration, public safety, prevention of mismanagement, sanitation, health and use of donations.
But the State cannot destroy the denomination’s basic right to establish and maintain religious or charitable institutions.
The key distinction is between:
• Religious affairs, where autonomy is protected
• Secular administration, where regulation is allowed
Important Constitutional Cases
In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shirur Mutt, 1954, the Supreme Court held that Article 26 protects the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. The Court also recognised that the State can regulate secular administration, but cannot interfere with essential religious matters.
In Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay, 1954, the Supreme Court held that Article 26 protects the right of religious denominations to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes. The State cannot take away this right, though it can regulate secular aspects of administration.
In S. P. Mittal v. Union of India, 1983, the Supreme Court explained the test for identifying a religious denomination. A group must have a common faith, common organisation and distinctive name to claim protection under Article 26.
In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018, the Sabarimala case, the Court examined whether the devotees of Lord Ayyappa formed a religious denomination under Article 26. The majority held that they did not constitute a separate religious denomination for claiming Article 26 protection. The case is important because it connects Article 26 rights with constitutional morality, equality and essential religious practices.
Importance
Article 26(a) is important because it protects India’s religious pluralism and institutional diversity.
It allows religious groups to preserve their identity through institutions and also supports charitable work carried out through religious bodies.
It protects denominational autonomy while still allowing the State to regulate secular management in public interest.
Concerns
The main tension under Article 26(a) is between religious autonomy and public regulation.
Religious institutions may manage large properties, donations and public services. This creates a need for transparency and accountability. But excessive State control can violate denominational freedom.
Major concerns include:
• Mismanagement of religious institutions
• State control over religious trusts
• Financial transparency
• Disputes over denominational status
• Conflict between custom and constitutional values
• Balance between autonomy and social reform
Conclusion
Article 26(a) protects the right of religious denominations to establish and maintain religious and charitable institutions. Its core protection is denominational autonomy, but this autonomy remains subject to public order, morality, health and regulation of secular administration.
