Article 25 of Indian Constitution: Freedom of Conscience and Religion

• The words are "all persons are equally entitled". So foreigners living in India also have this right, unlike Article 19, which is for citizens only.
• Explanation I: wearing and carrying a kirpan is part of professing the Sikh religion. Rules on its size, for example on flights, are still possible as reasonable regulation.
• Explanation II: for clause (2)(b) only, "Hindus" includes Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. So a temple-entry or reform law can cover their public institutions too. It does not say these religions are part of Hinduism for any other purpose.

The Indian idea of secularism

• India has no State religion. Articles 25 to 28 together make the State neutral among faiths.
• Western secularism (for example in the USA or France) keeps a strict wall between State and religion. Indian secularism is often described as equal respect for all religions (sarva dharma sambhava) with principled distance: the State does not favour any faith, but it can step in for reform, as Article 25(2) allows.
• The word "secular" was added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment, 1976; S.R. Bommai (1994) made secularism part of the basic structure.

Essential religious practices (a short note)

• Courts give the strongest protection to practices that are essential to a religion. The idea started in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954).
• Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (1958): sacrifice of a cow on Bakrid was held not to be an essential practice of Islam, so a ban on cow slaughter was valid.
• Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986): three Jehovah's Witness children who stood respectfully but did not sing the national anthem could not be expelled (Articles 19(1)(a) and 25).
• The full test, with the Sabarimala case, is on the Article 26 page.

• The right to propagate led some people to believe that converting others is also a fundamental right. In some remote tribal areas, conversions led to tension and law and order problems.
• Odisha (Orissa Freedom of Religion Act, 1967) and Madhya Pradesh (Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam, 1968) passed laws against conversion by force, fraud or allurement. The MP law required the conversion to be reported to the District Magistrate.
• Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (17 January 1977, five judges): Article 25 gives the right to propagate, that is, to spread one's religion by explaining its tenets. It does not give a fundamental right to convert another person, because that would hit the equal freedom of conscience of the other person. The laws were upheld as laws for public order, a State subject.
• A person's own choice to change faith is protected. In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (Hadiya case, 2018) the Court said an adult's choice of faith and partner is part of liberty and privacy.
• Conversion cannot be used to escape other laws. In Sarla Mudgal (1995) and Lily Thomas (2000) the Court held that a Hindu husband who converts only to marry again still commits bigamy.

State laws today

• Several States have laws on conversion, for example Arunachal Pradesh (1978), Gujarat (2003), Himachal Pradesh (2006, replaced in 2019, amended 2022), Jharkhand (2017), Uttarakhand (2018), Uttar Pradesh (2021), Madhya Pradesh (2021) and Karnataka (2022).
• Many newer laws add rules on conversion for marriage, prior notice to the District Magistrate and a burden of proof on the person who converts or helps.
• Petitions challenging several of these laws (for example from Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh) were pending before the Supreme Court at the last verified hearing. Some parts of the Gujarat 2021 amendment on interfaith marriage were stayed by the Gujarat High Court in 2021.
• Conversion also affects Scheduled Caste status: see our explainer on religious conversion and reservation.

• There is no central law on religious conversion. Private member's bills for one were moved in Parliament (for example in 1954, 1960 and 1979) but none was passed.
• A PIL asking for a national law against conversion by force, fraud or allurement (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India) was filed in 2022. In November 2022 a bench called forced conversion a serious issue and sought the Centre's response; the matter was pending at the last verified hearing.
• The main arguments on each side, as usually presented in exam answers:

Way forward (exam view)

• Points often made in UPSC answers: conversion disputes are mostly seen in remote, backward areas, not in cities, so development (roads, schools, health care, jobs) reduces the pressure that makes people vulnerable.
• Any law, State or central, should define "force", "fraud" and "allurement" clearly, protect an adult's free choice, and have safeguards against misuse.
• Many answers treat a new law as a last resort, used only where existing laws and development measures fall short. Others argue a uniform law gives clarity. A balanced answer presents both.

• Santhara or sallekhana is a Jain vow of giving up food and water step by step, usually at the end of life, to meet death calmly.
• 2006: a PIL, Nikhil Soni v. Union of India, was filed in the Rajasthan High Court, arguing that santhara is like suicide.
• 10 August 2015: the Rajasthan High Court held that santhara is not an essential practice of Jainism, that Article 21 does not include a right to die, and that it is punishable like suicide and abetment (IPC sections 309 and 306).
• 31 August 2015: the Supreme Court stayed the High Court judgment. The appeals are pending; there is no final Supreme Court ruling. Meanwhile the practice continues.

Arguments on each side

• Jain community view: santhara is a spiritual practice protected by the right to profess and practise religion (Article 25) and the right to manage religious affairs (Article 26). It is not suicide, which comes from despair; it is a calm vow taken with religious guidance.
• Petitioners' view: the State must protect life; elderly or sick persons may face social pressure; Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) held that Article 21 does not include a right to die by suicide.
• Law today: the IPC was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita on 1 July 2024. BNS has no general offence of attempt to suicide (section 226 covers only attempts to compel or restrain a public servant), and the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 (section 115) presumes severe stress in a suicide attempt. The question of abetment remains for the Supreme Court.

• 5 February 2022: a Karnataka government order asked pre-university colleges to follow the uniform set by their college committees. In practice this stopped students from wearing the hijab in classrooms in several colleges.
• 15 March 2022: a three-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court (Resham v. State of Karnataka) upheld the order. It held that wearing the hijab is not an essential religious practice of Islam, that a uniform is a reasonable restriction, and that it promotes equality.
• 13 October 2022: a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (Aishat Shifa v. State of Karnataka) gave a split verdict:

• Because the judges differed, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice of India for a larger bench. It was pending at the last verified hearing; the High Court judgment stands until then.
• The case raises wider questions that are also before the nine-judge Sabarimala reference: how far courts should decide what is essential to a religion, and how Article 25 fits with Articles 14, 19 and 21. A larger bench may give clarity.