India is one of the world’s most religiously diverse nations, home to Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and others. From the outset, its Constitution has aimed to accommodate this pluralism through impartial state policy. In modern India, secularism means that the State has no official religion and treats all faiths equally. As the Supreme Court has noted, India’s secularism requires that “the State neither supports any religion nor penalizes the profession and practice of any faith”. This neutrality is reflected in many constitutional guarantees. Although the word “secular” was only formally added to the Preamble in 1976, the values of religious equality and freedom have always underlain India’s constitutional scheme. Indeed, the Preamble promises liberty of thought, belief, faith and worship for all citizens. Thus, in the constitutional framework, secularism means upholding the right of every person to follow their religion of choice, subject only to the same reasonable limits that apply to other fundamental rights.

Historical Background

At independence in 1947, framers of the Indian Constitution consciously built a system to protect religious minorities and avoid state religion. The Constituent Assembly debates show that leaders recognized the need for religion-neutral governance. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously argued that India’s social and cultural diversity required a commitment to equal respect for all religions. The original Preamble (1950) did not explicitly say “secular,” but it guaranteed “liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship” to all. Over time, this secular ethos became clearer in law and practice.

In 1976, the 42nd Amendment formally inserted the word “secular” (along with “socialist” and “integrity”) into the Preamble. This was controversial, but it codified what had long been understood: that India has no state religion. The Supreme Court later declared secularism to be a basic feature of the Constitution. In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) and again in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court held that secularism – meaning neutrality among religions – is part of the constitution’s unamendable core. Subsequent decisions have repeatedly affirmed that secularism entails treating all faiths and persons alike. As one recent judgment explained, secularism “essentially represents the nation’s commitment to treat persons of all faiths equally and without discrimination”. Thus, even though India’s secularism allows for state regulation of certain practices for public welfare, the underlying principle remains that the state must respect every religion equally.

Fundamental Rights (Articles 25–28)

The core constitutional protections for religion are found in Articles 25–28. These provisions collectively ensure individual freedom of belief and prevent the state from endorsing or financing religion. They include:

Article 25: Freedom of conscience and worship

This guarantees that “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion,” subject only to public order, morality, and health. In practice, Article 25 protects personal belief and the right to conduct religious rituals. For example, it ensures that each citizen may change their religion or promote their faith (but not forcibly). The clause “subject to public order, morality and health” allows the state to ban harmful practices (such as human sacrifice, or other activities deemed socially injurious) even if claimed to be religious. In this way Article 25 balances free exercise of faith with social welfare. The Supreme Court has emphasized that Article 25 protects individuals (not only citizens) to follow any religion or none at all. Importantly, Article 25(2) explicitly empowers the State to regulate secular activities associated with religion (for example, regulating temple entry to ensure all castes can worship).

Article 26: Management of religious affairs

Every religious denomination (or any section thereof) has the right, “subject to public order, morality and health,” to establish and maintain its own institutions, manage Its religious affairs, acquire property, and administer that property according to law. In short, Article 26 lets communities run their temples, churches, mosques, gurdwaras, and charitable trusts independently. For example, a Hindu temple or a Sikh gurdwara board may hire priests and manage funds, while the state can only intervene on secular grounds (such as preventing financial mismanagement). The Constitution deliberately allows each faith to manage itself, recognizing that secularism does not mean the State interferes in the core doctrines or customs of religion. However, courts have held that activities like temple financial management are secular enough to be regulated by law. Article 26 thus secures self-administration for religious groups while still permitting the State to enact neutral laws (for example, preventing corruption in temple trusts).

Article 27: Neutrality of public funds

This provision forbids the State from using tax money to support any particular religion. In the precise words of the Constitution, “no person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination”. In effect, Article 27 means the government cannot levy a tax to fund, say, a pilgrimage or shrine of one faith. It codifies the principle that the state budget must remain secular. In modern policy, this has meant that government subsidies for religious activities are carefully scrutinized. (For instance, state support for Muslim pilgrims on the Haj and for Hindu pilgrims has been debated under Article 27’s rule.) Overall, Article 27 ensures that public revenue is not used to endorse or advance any religion, preserving fairness for taxpayers of all faiths.

Article 28: Religion and education

This clause forbids religious instruction in fully government-funded schools. Specifically, “no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds”. Students in government schools or aided schools cannot be compelled to take part in any religious instruction or worship at the school, unless they (or their guardians, if minors) consent. The only exception is if a school was established under a trust requiring religious teaching; in that case instruction may continue, but still on a voluntary basis. This provision is designed to keep public education secular and inclusive. It means, for example, that a Hindu-run school receiving government aid cannot force a Muslim student to pray to Hindu deities. Article 28 thus protects children (and parents) from compulsory religious activities in state-run institutions, exemplifying the constitutional separation of religion and state in the field of education.

Taken together, Articles 25–28 form a coherent scheme: 

The State guarantees freedom of religion for individuals and communities while itself remaining neutral. The State may not establish a faith or use law to favor one community. At the same time, each faith group has room to sustain itself (Article 26) and adherents have liberty of conscience (Article 25). The courts have observed that these provisions flow from the same secular ethos: in India the government “maintains no religion of its own, [and] all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience”. The Constitution thus binds the government to treat every religion alike, even as it upholds an individual’s right to pursue their religion.

Secularism in Practice Today

In contemporary India, these constitutional principles guide law and policy. Secularism as a constitutional value has shaped numerous decisions and statutes, promoting a pluralistic public order. The judiciary, in particular, has enforced religious neutrality repeatedly. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court famously ruled that secularism is part of India’s “basic structure” and struck down state actions that hinted at religious bias. More recently, a nine-judge bench emphasized that secularism in India has “the widest possible scope” – it means the State may not have an official faith and must give equal freedom to all, “regardless of [their] religious beliefs”. Such rulings influence lower courts and legislators to ensure laws remain neutral. The Supreme Court has also clarified that even activities traditionally thought “religious” can be regulated if they concern secular matters. For example, the appointment and pay of a temple priest has been held to involve secular duties (and so can be governed by general laws). In essence, India’s courts have woven secularism into the right to equality, underscoring that constitutional rights apply equally to all citizens of whatever faith.

Public policy has also reflected constitutional secularism. Government educational institutions, for instance, generally avoid religion in their curriculum or ceremonies. Thanks to Article 28, students in state schools do not receive compulsory religious instruction. Many states offer broadly civic or moral education instead of religious teaching, ensuring that children of different backgrounds are educated together. Official recognition of festivals illustrates religious neutrality: the government observes holidays for a wide range of religions (e.g. Diwali, Eid, Christmas, Guru Nanak’s Gurpurab, Buddha Purnima, etc.), signaling equal respect. Likewise, the armed forces and civil services are explicitly non-sectarian; officers of all faiths serve under a common flag, with no state religion at play. In everyday life, public ceremonies and national symbols (like the flag and anthem) are designed to be secular and not aligned with any church, temple, mosque or other faith group.

The financing of religious activities is closely watched under Article 27. For example, longstanding government subsidies for Muslim pilgrims (the Haj subsidy) became the subject of legal and political debate. The Supreme Court ruled that the Haj subsidy did not violate Article 27, noting it was funded by general revenue and not disproportionately large. Nevertheless, by 2018 the policy was changed and the subsidy phased out, partly to show impartiality toward all religions. This shift illustrates the secular principle at work: if the state funds religious travel for one community (like a pilgrimage), it must have similar support for others or reconsider such subsidies altogether, so as not to favor a single faith. In any case, Article 27 stands as a constitutional reminder that taxpayer money should not be earmarked for particular religious causes. Likewise, government grants to temples, churches, mosques or gurdwaras for charitable work (for instance, running schools or hospitals) are extended on a neutral basis, often through state-appointed boards or trusts to ensure transparency and equality.

Constitutional secularism has also influenced social reforms. For example, the abolition of untouchability and sati – practices rooted in orthodox religious customs – were upheld by the courts as consistent with the Constitution’s commitment to human dignity and equality. Similarly, even though marriage laws (like bans on child marriage) may affect communities differently, they are enacted in the name of social welfare rather than religion. In many cases, personal laws of different religions have coexisted (e.g. Hindu and Muslim marriage laws), but secular judges have on occasion struck down discriminatory provisions in them, citing fundamental rights and equality. The Supreme Court’s Ratulamma case (2015), for example, invalidated age restrictions on women’s entry to a Hindu temple (Sabarimala), upholding secular values of gender equality while balancing religious tradition. This illustrates how secular constitutionalism can shape society: it sometimes empowers the state (through courts or legislation) to reform religious practices that clash with broader rights, always invoking Articles 25–28’s spirit of equality and conscience.

Institutions run by religious communities also operate in India’s secular framework. Under Article 26, minority and majority communities alike can form trusts and educational institutions. For instance, Christian missionary schools, Muslim madrassas and Gurudwara-run colleges all function with the right to manage their affairs. At the same time, such institutions must respect secular laws – for example, they cannot discriminate by religion in admissions if they receive government aid. To illustrate, if a church school takes public funding, it must admit students of other faiths on the same terms. These arrangements reflect secularism by allowing religious bodies space to practice and educate, while preventing exclusive, state-funded religious indoctrination. Minority rights (Art. 29–30) complement this picture by protecting cultural and educational institutions of all communities.

In sum, secularism in India today means that neither religion nor irreligion is privileged by the state. Laws and public policies generally aim to be religion-neutral or religion-inclusive. Discrimination on religious grounds is expressly forbidden (Article 15) and is also seen as contrary to secular ethos. Courts and governments routinely invoke the Constitution’s commitment to equal respect for every faith. Whenever official action seems to favor one religion – whether in legislating, administering public funds, or regulating festivals – it is likely to be challenged under the banner of Articles 25–28. Over time, this constitutional framework has fostered a largely pluralistic public life: temples, mosques, churches and other places of worship coexist side by side, and citizens of different faiths often participate together in civic events.

Conclusion

In contemporary India, secularism – though often debated – remains central to the constitutional order. The Indian state continues to be legally bound to neutrality among religions. As the Supreme Court has affirmed, secularism in India is a guarantee that “all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, enjoy equal freedoms and rights”. Looking ahead, this principle will continue to shape law and policy. New challenges – such as balancing minority rights with social reforms or adapting secularism to digital-age issues – are likely to arise, but the Constitution’s commitment to religious freedom and equality provides a strong foundation. The future of Indian secularism depends on maintaining the rule of law and democratic processes that uphold these constitutional values. In the long run, the constitutional promise of equal respect for all faiths and the liberty of belief must guide India’s development, ensuring that diversity remains a strength rather than a source of division.

.    .    .

Sources: 

• Provisions of the Constitution of India (Articles 25–28, 29–30, Directive Principles); Supreme Court judgments and commentary. These include foundational cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. Kerala and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, as well as recent bench opinions upholding secularism.