Fundamental Rights: Article 21, religion and minority rights

Article 25(1) says 'all persons' are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and the other provisions of Part III. So it protects foreigners in India as well as citizens, and people of every faith or none. Article 25(2) lets the State regulate secular activities linked with religious practice and make laws for social reform. Explanation II, which treats Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists as Hindus, applies only to Article 25(2)(b). The rights of religious denominations as groups are in Article 26, which requires no registration. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P. (1977) the Court held that the right to propagate does not include a right to convert another person. Explanation I to Article 25 protects the wearing and carrying of kirpans by Sikhs.

Statement 1 is correct: Article 25 uses the words 'all persons', so foreigners living in India also enjoy freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and the other provisions of Part III. Statement 2 is incorrect: Article 26 gives its rights to 'every religious denomination or any section thereof': to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its own affairs in matters of religion, own and acquire property, and administer it in accordance with law. Article 26 is thus a collective or group right; the Shirur Mutt case (1954) described a denomination as a collection of individuals with a common faith, a common organisation and a distinctive name. The courts use the 'essential religious practice' test, first set out in the Shirur Mutt case (1954), to decide what Article 26 protects.

Statement 1 is correct and reproduces Article 29(2): no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. Statement 2 is incorrect: Article 29(1) protects 'any section of the citizens' residing in India or any part of it having a distinct language, script or culture of its own. The Supreme Court has held that it is not limited to minorities and can extend to a section of the majority as well. Article 30, by contrast, is expressly limited to religious and linguistic minorities. Article 29(2) is an individual right that protects every citizen, including members of the majority, from denial of admission on the listed grounds.

Neither statement is correct. Statement 1: Article 29(2) applies only to educational institutions maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds; it does not reach private unaided institutions, which are dealt with separately, for example by Article 15(5) and the RTE Act. Statement 2: Article 28(1) bars religious instruction only in institutions wholly maintained out of State funds. For institutions that are merely aided or recognised, Article 28(3) applies instead: religious instruction may be given, but no one can be compelled to attend it without consent, or a guardian's consent for a minor. Article 28(2) also exempts State- administered institutions set up under a trust that requires religious instruction.

All three. Article 25(2)(a) saves any existing or future law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice, such as the management of temple funds. Article 25(2)(b) saves laws providing for social welfare and reform, such as laws against untouchability, bigamy or sati, and for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus, such as temple-entry laws. Explanation II says 'Hindus' here includes persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion. These clauses let the State reform religious practice without violating Article 25. Article 25(2)(b) was central to the Sabarimala case (2018), where a 4:1 majority allowed women of all ages to enter; broader questions were referred to a larger bench in November 2019.

Statement 1 is correct: Article 28(1) bars religious instruction in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds, but Article 28(2) lifts that bar for an institution administered by the State that was established under an endowment or trust requiring religious instruction. Statement 2 is incorrect: under Article 28(3), no person attending an institution recognised by the State or receiving State aid shall be required to take part in religious instruction or worship there without his consent, or, for a minor, the consent of his guardian. So Article 28 creates three categories: wholly State-maintained (barred), State-administered trust (allowed), and recognised or aided (allowed, but voluntary).

Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Article 30(1A), inserted by the 44th Amendment Act, 1978 when the right to property was removed from Part III, requires that in any law for compulsory acquisition of property of a minority educational institution, the amount fixed shall be such as would not restrict or abrogate the right under Article 30(1). Article 30(2) bars the State from discriminating against an institution in grant of aid on the ground that it is under minority management. Statement 3 is incorrect: the Constitution does not define 'minority', and Article 366 has no such entry. Minorities are notified under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, and for Article 30 they are identified State-wise (T.M.A. Pai, 2002). Minority rights under Article 30 are not absolute: in T.M.A. Pai the Court held that the State can regulate standards, qualifications and fair admission in such institutions.

In T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), an eleven-judge bench held that, because the States were reorganised on linguistic lines, the unit for deciding who is a linguistic minority for Article 30 is the State, not the whole of India; and religious minorities must be judged on the same basis. A community that is a majority nationally can therefore be a minority in a particular State, and vice versa. The Constitution does not define 'minority', and the Union's notification under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 is for that Act's purposes, not the test for Article 30. The case also held that running educational institutions is an occupation under Article 19(1)(g). At the national level, six communities are notified as minorities under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992: Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis and Jains (added in 2014).

Statements I and III are correct (c). An Ordinance under Article 123 has the same force as an Act of Parliament. Statement I is right: so it can amend any Central Act. Statement III is right: like an Act, it can be made retrospective, taking effect from a back date. Statement II is wrong: Article 13 counts an Ordinance as "law", and no law can take away or abridge Fundamental Rights. So options (a), (b) and (d) fail.

Notice the limits: an Ordinance can be issued only when Parliament is not in session, and it lapses six weeks after Parliament reassembles unless approved. In Krishna Kumar Singh (2017), the Supreme Court held that re-promulgating Ordinances again and again is a fraud on the Constitution. Governors have the same power under Article 213.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

All three pairs are correctly matched (c). Pair I is right: separation of the judiciary from the executive is Article 50, a Directive Principle. Pair II is right: valuing and preserving our composite culture is Article 51A(f), a Fundamental Duty. Pair III is right: no child below 14 may work in factories, mines or hazardous work under Article 24, a Fundamental Right. So options (a), (b) and (d) fail.

Notice related provisions: Article 21A gives free education for ages 6–14 (86th Amendment, 2002), and Article 51A(k) asks parents to educate their children. The Child Labour Amendment Act, 2016 banned all child labour below 14. Article 39(e) and (f) protect children too.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

The Supreme Court placed the Right to Privacy under Article 21 (d). In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), a nine-judge Bench held that privacy is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and also flows from the freedoms in Part III. It overruled the older M.P. Sharma (1954) and Kharak Singh (1962) rulings. Option (a) is wrong: Article 15 bans discrimination. Option (b) is wrong: Article 16 gives equal opportunity in public jobs. Option (c) is wrong: Article 19 lists six freedoms, such as speech.

Notice that most new rights, such as food, shelter, livelihood and a clean environment, came through Article 21. Parliament later passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

UPSC dropped this question, so no answer was counted. The ideas are still worth knowing. The 1st Amendment (1951) answered court rulings on land reform and free speech: it added the Ninth Schedule to shield land laws and new limits to Article 19(2). The 42nd Amendment (1976) also tried to put laws based on the Directive Principles beyond Fundamental Rights challenges. The 44th (1978) undid many Emergency changes, and the 86th (2002) made education a Fundamental Right. More than one option fits "widely believed", which is likely why it was dropped.

Notice the long tussle: courts struck down laws, Parliament amended, and Kesavananda Bharati (1973) finally set the basic structure limit on amendments.

UPSC dropped this question from evaluation; there is no official answer.

Open this question's page →

An independent judiciary is the essential federal feature (a). A federation divides power between the Union and the States. That division needs an independent umpire to settle disputes between them and to interpret the Constitution, so the independence of the judiciary is an essential federal feature. In India, the Supreme Court settles Centre–State disputes under Article 131. Option (b) can exist in a unitary state with regional seats. Option (c) is a matter of politics, not structure. Option (d) concerns rights, which unitary states also protect.

Notice the other federal features: a written Constitution, division of powers (Seventh Schedule), bicameralism and a rigid amendment process. India is often called "quasi-federal", after K.C. Wheare.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →

Property is a legal right available to any person (b). The 44th Amendment (1978) removed the right to property from Part III, the Fundamental Rights. It is now a constitutional (legal) right under Article 300A: "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." The word "person" covers non-citizens and companies too, not just citizens. So option (a) is wrong for limiting it to citizens. Options (c) and (d) are wrong: it is no longer a Fundamental Right, but it is still a legal right.

Notice that the right was once in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. Because it is not a Fundamental Right, a person must go to a High Court under Article 226, not straight to the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.

Open this question's page →