Religious Practices that Disrupt Social Harmony are not Protected under Articles 25 and 26

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad, in Aseen v. State of UP and 3 Others (2026), dismissed a writ petition filed by one Aseen, who sought a direction to the authorities to provide security and permission to offer Namaz on a piece of land in a village in District Sambhal. 

• The Court held that the introduction or expansion of a religious practice not previously prevalent — particularly where it disturbs the existing social balance — is not protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It further held that the State is not required to wait for an actual disruption and may take reasonable preventive measures where such activity is likely to affect public life.

What was the Background of Aseen v. State of UP and 3 Others (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner claimed ownership of a private piece of land in District Sambhal based on a gift deed executed in June 2023. He alleged that the respondent authorities were restraining him from offering Namaz on the said land, thereby violating his fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. He accordingly approached the High Court seeking security and permission to conduct prayers at the location. 
• The State, on the other hand, contended that the land in question was recorded as Abadi land — land meant for public use — and that the petitioner had no valid ownership rights over it. 
• The State further submitted that Namaz had traditionally been offered at the said location only on the occasion of Eid, and that no restriction had been imposed on this established practice. However, the petitioner was attempting to introduce regular large-scale congregational prayers by inviting persons from within and outside the village, which amounted to the introduction of a new and non-traditional religious practice. 
• The State argued that while religious practices are to be respected, no new or non-traditional activities can be permitted beyond established practices, as doing so would disturb public order.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Scope of Articles 25 and 26: The Court held that while the Constitution protects the right to practice religion, this right is expressly subject to public order, morality, and health. The right to practice religion is not unlimited and must be exercised in a manner that does not affect others or disrupt the normal functioning of public life. 
• On Existing vs. New Religious Practices: The Court drew a clear distinction between existing lawful religious practices and the introduction of new or expanded ones. It held that existing lawful religious practices and long-regulated arrangements or permissions granted for limited or specific purposes may stand on their own footing, but no new or unilateral claim can be founded merely on religion or personal preference. 
• On Private Religious Activities: The Court observed that private prayers, family worship, and other limited devotional activities ordinarily fall within the protected domain of religious freedoms under Articles 25 and 26. However, this protection is confined to activity that is truly private, occasional, and non-disruptive. It does not extend to transforming any private premises into a de facto public religious venue. 
• On Preventive State Action: The Court held that the law does not require the authorities to wait for an actual disturbance to occur. Where an activity is likely to affect public order, the State is entitled to act in advance. The test, the Court emphasised, is not the religious nature of the activity, but its public consequences. 
• On the Principle of Secularism: The Court held that this approach is consistent with the constitutional principle of secularism, which requires equal treatment of all religions and equal application of law. While the State must permit private worship, it is equally bound to regulate activities that affect public order, whether on public land or on private premises. 
• On the Merits of the Present Case: The Court noted that the land in question is recorded as public land and that the petitioner's claim of ownership rested only on vague boundary descriptions. Even assuming the land to be private, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to relief, as he was seeking to introduce a new religious practice rather than protect an existing one. The record showed that Namaz was earlier offered only on specific occasions such as Eid, and the petitioner's attempt to expand this to regular congregational gatherings — including persons from within and outside the village — fell outside the protected domain and was subject to regulation. Finding no enforceable legal right, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

What are Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India? 

Article 25 of COI: 

• This Article deals with the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. It states that-  

(1) 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, practise and propagate religion. 

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law. 

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice. 

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus  

Explanation I - The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion  

Explanation II - In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. 

• It covers not only religious beliefs but also religious practices. 
• These rights are available to all persons—citizens as well as non-citizens.

Article 26 of COI: 

• Article 26 deals with freedom to manage religious affairs. It states that subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right- 

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; 

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; 

(c)  to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and 

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law 

• This Article protects collective freedom of religion.  
• The right guaranteed by Article 26 is the right of an organized body like the religious denomination or their sections.  
• The Supreme Court held that a religious denomination must satisfy the following three conditions:  
  • It should be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being. 
  • It should have a common organization. 
  • It should be designated by a distinctive name.