By – Kamya Sharma
Abstract
Religious institutions in India control a substantial wealth like gold in temples, waqf properties which cover around nine lakh registered parcels and significant contributions from devotees. When the question of governing these religious institutions comes up, it is considered as an administrative question however, it is a constitutional question too. This article will provide an analysis of constitutional principles such as secularism, religious freedom ,and equality. All these together focus on the limits of state power over religious institutions and their assets. The article argues that the central question is not whether the State may regulate religious assets, but whether it does so fairly across religious communities, in line with the equality that secularism is meant to serve.
Introduction
In September 2024 ,a controversy arose concerning food safety, as there were allegations that ghee used in the preparation of prasadam at the Tirupati Balaji temple was adulterated with animal fat. Based on this, a political demand came up that Hindu temples should be “freed” from state administration. During this period governance in regards to religious institution started coming up and Parliament then passed the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 ,amending how waqf properties are registered ,and governed and this move drew more than 70 constitutional challenges in the Supreme Court within weeks of the president’s assent. On the face ,both of these are separate controversies but in reality they ask the same question since the 1950s as to how far the state can go in regulating the property and finance of religious institutions. It further questions that can the state make different rules for different religions without violating the promise of equality before the law? The management of religious institutions is where secularism, religious freedom, and equality are tested against each other. This article questions what a constitution based policy framework for religious institutions governance would need to look like. The article examines the constitutional principles which govern the state regulation of religious institutions. Further the article analyses the debates around temples and waqf governance and argues for a framework which is consistent for all the religious institutions.
Secularism principle
The Indian constitution permits the state, in some aspects, to engage with religion but the engagement should be neutral across religious communities and the engagement should be in a secular manner. “Secular” was added into the preamble through the 42nd Amendment in 1976, but according to the Supreme Court, the underlying principle was embedded in the Constitution from 1950 through Articles 25–28 ,which talk about freedom of religion and Articles 14–16 which promotes non-discrimination.
Dr Radhakrishnan described Indian secularism as no religion should be given a preferential status and no religion should be given special privilege ,as this would violate the basic principles of democracy. This established the constitutional yardstick in which it should be measured whether the state regulates institutions with equality across religious communities. Indian secularism is not indifferent to religion instead, there is engagement in a regulated manner.
Religious Freedom
Secularism gives the state the power to govern religious institutions ,and articles25 and 26 explains how far the governance can go. Article 25 guarantees every person the right to profess and practice religion, but makes this freedom subject to the State’s power to regulate or restrict any “economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice.” Article 26 gives religious society the right to manage their own religious affairs and to own and administer property but “in accordance with law”, which means the manner of administering that property is legislatively regulable even where the underlying right to hold it is not.
The Supreme Court gave the operative test for separating protected religious practice from regulable secular activity in Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Madras v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt. A seven judge bench in a review which challenged the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 held that the State could regulate the secular activities associated with a religious institution, but it could not interfere with their practices which are essential for the religion and this was known as the doctrine of essentiality. This doctrine was used in many disputes involving religious institutions and their governance like Sikh Gurdwara elections to the Dargah Khwaja Saheb case to the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, and the Karnataka hijab controversy. Further, a review of the doctrine’s evolution across nineteen supreme court cases notes that Articles 25 and 26 have been read as permitting judicial enquiry into the character of a practice only to distinguish religious practice from economic or political activity. On the other hand religious denominations are given “complete autonomy” in determining what is integral and essential to their faith.
Equality as the contested ground
Equality under Articles 14 and 15 is the most contested ground in the entire debate because secularism allows regulation, and the essentiality doctrine defines its scope ,so equality questions whether that regulatory power is being used fairly across religious communities.
Many Hindu organisations argue that Hindu temples are given a disproportionate share of state control compared to institutions of other faiths. One widely cited formulation of this argument contends that the equality promised under Articles 14 and 15 and the freedom to manage religious affairs under Articles 25(1) and 26 are effectively curtailed for Hindu temples majorly because temple finances are classified as a “secular” matter under Article 25(2)(a) but mosques, churches, and gurdwaras are said to attain considerably greater administrative autonomy. A comparative legal analysis of HR&CE statutes makes a parallel argument ,arguing that such Acts create provisions exclusively for Hindu temples and not for places of worship of other religions. The people in support of the current framework say that the asymmetry is because of history rather than religious discrimination. Before independence, Hindu temples used to generate a lot of revenue and had landed estates ,due to which state supervision was needed however ,Waqf Act properties, for their part, are also subject to extensive statutory boards under the Waqf Act framework and Sikh Gurdwaras have long been governed by the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, so the more accurate description may be “publicly endowed religious property of any denomination attracts statutory oversight,” even where the specific legal instruments differ in form and intensity.
Two Sides of the same Constitutional Question
In states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka ,HR&CE runs the temples by appointing trustees, approving budgets, and pooling temple income into common funds, and this structure dates back to the 1927 Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. Many critics call this a violation of secularism ,saying that regulation often becomes indirect political control over appointments and funds.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 also expanded Union oversight of waqf registration, added non Muslim board members and barred non Muslims from creating waqfs. Many petitions were filed against it saying it was violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, and 300A. CJI B.R. Gavai declined to stay the Act entirely but paused a few provisions including the five year “practising Muslim” requirement, and capped non Muslim representation at four of 22 seats on the Central Waqf Council and three per State Board. The issue here suggests the real fix in this case is not to pick a side but to build a system which is transparent, independent, and fairly applies governance mechanisms across all traditions.
Conclusion
Due to the huge diversity, the regulation of religious institutions in India cannot be understood through any single constitutional lens. Secularism explains why the State is constitutionally allowed and even expected to engage with religious institutions neutrally . Religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 ,which is filtered through the Shirur Mutt essentiality
Doctrine, establishes how far that engagement can go before it crosses from regulating “secular activity” into impermissible interference in religious practice. Lastly, equality under Articles 14 and 15 is still unresolved as to whether the State’s exercise of that regulatory power is heavier for Hindu temples and if the newly amended Act for waqf properties is being applied with the neutral approach that secularism demands. Lastly the debate on these religious institutions is not just about the administrative control but it is also a test of India’s commitment to the constitution. The framework which will be formed will thus depend on whether it shows the constitutional values of equality and secularism and not whether who regulates it
The waqf litigation remains pending ,and the temple freedom movement remains a demand in several states. What a constitutionally sound resolution will ultimately require on the situation analysed here is not the justification of one principle over the other two but a regulatory framework for temples, waqf boards, and every other religious institution. Also
these regulations should be similar so that it can satisfy religious autonomy, equality across faiths and genuine public accountability. The aim is not regulation over all religious institutions but it is to form a framework that treats each and every faith and religion with equality and at the same time take in consideration the reasonable differences of each institution and religion.
About the Author
Kamya Sharma is a third year BA LLB student studying in OP Jindal Global University and her interest lies in Constitution law, public policy and sports law.
Image Source- https://www.nayalegal.com/secularism-and-freedom-of-religion