Article 27 of the Indian Constitution

Article 27 of the Indian Constitution: Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of Religion Introduction India is a secular country, meaning that...

Article 27 of the Indian Constitution: Freedom from Taxation for Promotion of Religion

Introduction

India is a secular country, meaning that the government does not favor or discriminate against any religion. One of the key provisions ensuring secularism is Article 27 of the Indian Constitution. This article prohibits the use of taxpayer money to promote or support any particular religion.

In this blog post, we will explore the meaning, importance, interpretation, case laws, and impact of Article 27 in India.

---

What is Article 27?

Text of Article 27:

"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."

Key Points of Article 27:

1. No Compulsion to Fund Religious Activities – The government cannot force citizens to pay taxes that are specifically used for promoting or maintaining a religion.
2. Protection of Secularism – The provision ensures that public funds are not misused for religious activities.
3. Distinction Between Religious and General Expenses – The government can spend on religious institutions for administrative purposes, but not for religious propagation.

---

Significance of Article 27

1. Ensures Secularism in India

• India follows a policy of positive secularism, meaning that the state remains neutral in religious matters.
• Article 27 prevents any government favoritism towards a particular religion.

2. Prevents Misuse of Public Funds

• Citizens’ tax money should be used for public welfare, development, and administration rather than promoting any particular religion.

3. Maintains Equality Among Religions

• If the government funds one religion, it may lead to discrimination and conflict.
• Article 27 ensures that all religions are treated equally without state interference.

---

Interpretation and Landmark Judgments

1. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (1954)

• The Supreme Court ruled that administering religious institutions (like temples and mosques) for public order is allowed, but religious expenses cannot be funded by the state.

2. Sri Jagannath Temple Act Case (1960)

• The Supreme Court upheld that public money can be used for administration of religious places but not for religious rituals or promotions.

3. Prafull Goradia v. Union of India (2011)

• The Supreme Court clarified that subsidies for religious pilgrimages (like Haj subsidy) do not violate Article 27, as long as they are aimed at welfare and not for religious propagation.

---

Exceptions and Related Provisions

1. Funding for Religious Institutions' Administration

   • The government can spend money on managing temples, mosques, and churches to ensure smooth administration.

2. Funding for Cultural or Heritage Purposes

   • The government can allocate funds to preserve historical religious sites under Article 49 (protection of monuments).

3. State Support for Minority Institutions

   • Under Article 30, minority religious institutions can receive aid from the government.

---

Comparison with Other Countries

Country	Government Role in Religion	Similarity to Article 27
USA	Strict separation of Church and State (First Amendment)	Similar, as tax money cannot be used for religious promotion.
UK	Official state religion (Church of England)	Different, as the UK government funds religious institutions.
France	Strict secularism (Laïcité)	Similar, as no religious funding is allowed from taxes.

---

Impact of Article 27 in India

✅ Prevents misuse of taxpayer money for religious bias.
✅ Ensures a secular government with equal treatment of all religions.
✅ Reduces chances of religious conflicts arising from state favoritism.
✅ Upholds the fundamental rights of citizens (Articles 14, 15, and 25).

However, debates arise on whether schemes like Haj subsidies, temple management by state authorities, or grants to religious institutions violate Article 27. The judiciary plays a key role in balancing secularism and state responsibilities.

---

Conclusion

Article 27 is a crucial part of India's secular framework. It prevents the government from compelling citizens to fund religious activities through taxes. This article ensures fair governance, equal treatment of all religions, and the prevention of religious favoritism.

Although some government policies related to religious institutions and subsidies remain controversial, the judiciary continues to interpret Article 27 to uphold India’s secular and democratic values.

What are your thoughts on Article 27? Let us know in the comments!