Right To Practice Religion

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi dismissed a plea seeking reconstruction of Ujjain’s Takiya Masjid, holding that the right to practice religion under Article 25 isn’t tied to a specific place. Citing a 1978 Allahabad HC ruling, the Court said acquisition of land with a mosque doesn’t violate religious freedom. 

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court held this in the matter of Mohammed Taiyab v. State of MP  (2025). 

What was the Background of Mohammed Taiyab v. State of MP (2025) Case? 

• The appellants, Mohammed Taiyab and others, are local residents of Ujjain who regularly offered namaz at Takiya Masjid situated at Survey Numbers 2324-2329 of Revenue Circle-3, Tehsil Ujjain. 
• The Masjid was established approximately 200 years ago and was declared as Waqf property through Official Gazette Notification dated 13th December, 1985. 
• The State Government initiated land acquisition proceedings to expand the parking space of Mahakal Lok Parishar in Ujjain. 
• The State passed an award, distributed compensation to persons claimed to be encroachers, and demolished the Masjid on 11th January, 2025. 
• The appellants filed Writ Petition No. 1515 of 2025 seeking directions for reconstruction of the Masjid and initiation of enquiry against responsible government officials. 
• The State contended that the land acquisition was conducted following due process of law and that all properties had vested with the State Government. 
• The State further contended that multiple writ petitions filed by affected persons challenging the acquisition had been dismissed by the Court. 
• The Madhya Pradesh Waqf Board had filed a civil suit under Section 83(2) of the Waqf Act, 1995 before the M.P. State Waqf Tribunal claiming title and right to receive compensation. 
• The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 4th September, 2025 on the grounds that acquisition proceedings had attained finality. 
• The appellants filed Writ Appeal No. 2782 of 2025 challenging the Single Judge's order before the Division Bench. 
• The appellants relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee case, arguing that as devotees they possessed the right to seek reconstruction. 
• The appellants contended that the State's actions violated their religious rights guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. 
• The appellants emphasized that once property is declared as Waqf property, it remains Waqf property in perpetuity and was therefore wrongfully acquired. 
• The State relied upon the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Mohammad Ali Khan case, contending that the appellants lacked locus standi to file the petition.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the Masjid and land had been acquired following due process of law, with compensation distributed to numerous persons in possession. 
• The Court noted that although the appellants were challenging the acquisition proceedings, they were not seeking quashment of the same in the relief clause. 
• The Court held that without seeking relief for quashment of the acquisition proceedings and award, the relief of restoration and consequential construction cannot be granted. 
• The Court expressed full agreement with the Allahabad High Court's decision in Mohammad Ali Khan case regarding the right to practise religion. 
• The Court held that the profession, practice and propagation of religion guaranteed under Article 25 is a personal right which has no nexus with any particular place or territory. 
• The Court observed that a person may offer prayers at any mosque, in his house, or elsewhere, and is not confined to any particular place. 
• The Court held that acquisition of land on which a mosque exists cannot be deemed to deprive an individual of his right to freely practise religion. 
• The Court observed that Article 25 is subject to Article 31, and the freedom guaranteed under Article 25 cannot take away the State's right to lawfully acquire property. 
• The Court held that the right to practise religion encompasses freedom to practise it anywhere and not its practice in any particular place. 
• The Court concluded that the appellants had no locus standi to seek reconstruction of the Masjid. 
• The Court found no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 
• The Court dismissed the Writ Appeal with no order as to costs. 

What is the Scope and Significance of the Freedom of Conscience and Religion Guaranteed Under Article 25 of the Constitution of India? 

• Part III of the Constitution of India contains Fundamental Rights, and the freedom guaranteed under Article 25 is subject to other provisions contained in Part III. 
• Article 25 - Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice and Propagation of Religion 
• Clause (1) - General Right: 
  • Article 25(1) guarantees all persons the right to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. 
  • The freedom under Article 25(1) is subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions of Part III of the Constitution. 
  • The right guaranteed under Article 25(1) ensures equal entitlement to all persons irrespective of their religious affiliation. 
• Clause (2) - State's Power to Regulate: 
  • Article 25(2) empowers the State to make laws regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity associated with religious practice. 
  • Article 25(2) permits the State to enact laws for social welfare and reform and for throwing open Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. 
  • Nothing in Article 25 affects the operation of any existing law or prevents the State from making regulatory laws. 
• Explanations: 
  • Explanation I provides that wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. 
  • Explanation II provides that references to Hindus and Hindu religious institutions shall include persons professing Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion and their respective religious institutions. 
• Interpretative Principles: 
  • The freedom to profess religion means the right to declare one's religious beliefs and faith openly and freely. 
  • The freedom to practice religion encompasses the right to act according to one's religious beliefs and perform religious rituals. 
  • The freedom to propagate religion includes the right to communicate and spread one's religious beliefs to others. 
  • Article 25 confers individual rights upon persons as distinguished from collective or institutional rights under Article 26. 
  • The freedom under Article 25 is a personal right which has no necessary nexus with any particular place or territory where it is exercised.