Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees to all persons the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health, and to the other provisions of Part III. Under Indian law, Article 25 is a fundamental right that protects both the internal freedom of belief (conscience) and the external freedom of religious expression, while enabling the State to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice and to legislate for social welfare and reform.
Legal definition
The Constitution provides the full text of Article 25:
Article 25(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."
Article 25(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 (2), the 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."
Article 25 guarantees the right to "all persons" — not merely citizens — making it one of the broader fundamental rights in terms of personal applicability. The right is, however, subject to three express limitations: public order, morality, and health. Additionally, clause (2) empowers the State to regulate secular activities associated with religion and to enact social reform legislation, even if such legislation affects religious practices.
How courts have interpreted this term
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [(1994) 3 SCC 1]
A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that secularism is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution and cannot be altered even by constitutional amendment. The Court held that Articles 25 and 26 guarantee religious freedom on the premise of a secular State — one that treats all religions with equal respect without favouring or disfavouring any. The judgment clarified that secularism in the Indian context does not mean irreligion or atheism but rather the equal treatment of all religions by the State. The Court also held that a State government that pursues policies contrary to secularism or uses religion for political purposes can be dismissed under Article 356.
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar [AIR 1954 SC 282]
The Supreme Court established the "essential religious practices" doctrine — the test for determining which practices fall within the protection of Article 25. The Court held that Article 25 protects only those practices that are "essential" or "integral" to a religion, as distinguished from secular or superstitious practices that may be associated with religious observance. What constitutes an essential religious practice is to be determined by the court with reference to the religion's doctrines, tenets, and historical practices. This decision remains the foundational authority for distinguishing protected religious practices from regulable secular activities.
Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1977 SC 908]
The Supreme Court interpreted the word "propagate" in Article 25(1) and held that it means the right to transmit or spread one's religion by exposition of its tenets. However, the Court held that the right to propagate does not include the right to convert another person. The freedom of conscience guaranteed under Article 25(1) includes the freedom of each individual to choose their own religion — and that freedom would be violated if conversion were achieved through fraud, inducement, or coercion. This decision upheld the constitutionality of anti-conversion statutes enacted by Madhya Pradesh and Odisha.
Why this matters
Article 25 operationalises one of the most distinctive features of the Indian constitutional framework: secularism as a positive, pluralistic doctrine rather than a strict separation of religion and State. Unlike the American model of a "wall of separation," Indian secularism under Article 25 requires the State to maintain equal respect for all religions while retaining the power to regulate their secular aspects and legislate for social reform. This means the State can enact laws abolishing untouchability, reforming personal laws, and opening temples to all castes — even if these measures interfere with religious practice.
For practitioners, the "essential religious practices" test remains the central analytical framework. When a petitioner claims that a State action violates Article 25, the court must first determine whether the impugned practice is "essential" or "integral" to the religion in question. If it is, the practice receives constitutional protection and can only be restricted on grounds of public order, morality, or health. If it is not — if it is merely a secular or superstitious practice associated with religion — the State may regulate or prohibit it under Article 25(2)(a). This test has been applied in cases ranging from the entry of women into Sabarimala Temple (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018) to the practice of triple talaq (Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017).
A frequently misunderstood distinction is between Articles 25 and 26. Article 25 guarantees individual religious freedom — the right of each person to profess, practise, and propagate. Article 26 protects the collective or institutional dimension — the right of every religious denomination to manage its religious affairs, establish institutions for religious and charitable purposes, and administer its property. A claim involving a religious institution's management or property engages Article 26; a claim involving a person's individual religious belief or practice engages Article 25.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Sibling provisions (Right to Freedom of Religion):
Related enforcement:
Frequently asked questions
Does Article 25 protect the right to convert others to one's religion?
The Supreme Court in Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P. (1977) held that Article 25 guarantees the right to "propagate" — to transmit and spread one's religious tenets — but does not guarantee a right to convert another person. The distinction is between persuasion (protected) and conversion through fraud, allurement, or coercion (not protected). Several states have enacted "Freedom of Religion" statutes regulating religious conversions, and the Supreme Court has upheld such legislation as constitutionally valid.
What is the "essential religious practices" test?
The essential religious practices doctrine, established in the Shirur Mutt case (1954), requires courts to determine whether an impugned practice is essential or integral to a religion before granting it Article 25 protection. The court examines the religion's foundational texts, historical practices, and doctrinal tenets to make this determination. Practices found to be non-essential or secular in nature — such as certain commercial or administrative activities of religious institutions — may be regulated by the State under Article 25(2).
Can the State regulate religious practices?
Yes. Article 25(2) expressly empowers the State to (a) regulate or restrict economic, financial, political, or other secular activities associated with religious practice, and (b) provide for social welfare and reform, including opening Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections of Hindus. This power has been exercised to abolish untouchability, reform temple administration, and modify personal law practices. The State's regulatory power extends to all aspects of religion that are not "essential" religious practices.
Does Article 25 apply to non-citizens?
Yes. Article 25 uses the phrase "all persons," not "all citizens." This means the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion is available to every person within Indian territory, regardless of citizenship. This is in contrast to certain other fundamental rights — such as Articles 15, 16, and 19 — which are available only to citizens.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.