Score:
5/10
Analyze what earned this score 🔥
Topper’s Copy
GS2
Indian Polity
10 marks
"The constitutional guarantee of religious freedom does not confer absolute immunity from State regulation." Examine this statement with reference to Article 25(2) and Article 26(b) in the context of State control over temple administration.
Student’s Answer
Evaluation by SuperKalam
Demand of the Question
- Examine the statement that religious freedom doesn't confer absolute immunity from State regulation
- Reference to Article 25(2) and Article 26(b) in analysis
- Context of State control over temple administration
- Balance between religious freedom and state regulation
What you wrote:
The Constitution mandates a principled intervention, balancing religious autonomy with public accountability. Article 25 & 26 protect religious freedom. Ar 25(2) permits state regulation of secular activities associated with religion, making religious freedom subject to constitutional remedies.
The Constitution mandates a principled intervention, balancing religious autonomy with public accountability. Article 25 & 26 protect religious freedom. Ar 25(2) permits state regulation of secular activities associated with religion, making religious freedom subject to constitutional remedies.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could clarify the constitutional framework more precisely (e.g., "Article 25(2) allows state regulation of secular activities while Article 26(b) protects denominational autonomy in religious matters")
- Can strengthen by mentioning the Essential Religious Practices doctrine as the judicial test for this balance
What you wrote:
Constitutional position
Ar 25(2) The State may regulate
Ar 25 (2) (a) Economic, financial, and secular activities associated with religion.
Ar 25 (2) (b) Social reform and opening Hindu religious institution to all classes and denominations.
Ar 26 (b) Religious denominations may manage their own affairs in matters of religions, but not secular administration.
Judicial Interpretation
Shirur Mutt (1954) - Constitutional Test
The Supreme Court evolved the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine.
Table of comparison for Protected and Regulated activities:
Protected:
- Rituals
- Worship
- Doctrine
- Religious ceremonies
Regulated:
- Temple finances
- Property & Endowments
- Accounts & Audits
- Administrative Appointments
Thus religious affairs remains protected, secular affairs regulated.
Further Evolution:
- Ratilal (1954): property adm can be regulated by law.
- Durgah Committee (1961): Non-essential practices need not receive constitutional protection.
- Sabarimala (2018): Highlighted the continuing debate b/w constitutional morality and denominational autonomy.
Constitutional position
Ar 25(2) The State may regulate
Ar 25 (2) (a) Economic, financial, and secular activities associated with religion.
Ar 25 (2) (b) Social reform and opening Hindu religious institution to all classes and denominations.
Ar 26 (b) Religious denominations may manage their own affairs in matters of religions, but not secular administration.
Judicial Interpretation
Shirur Mutt (1954) - Constitutional Test
The Supreme Court evolved the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine.
Table of comparison for Protected and Regulated activities:
Protected:
- Rituals
- Worship
- Doctrine
- Religious ceremonies
Regulated:
- Temple finances
- Property & Endowments
- Accounts & Audits
- Administrative Appointments
Thus religious affairs remains protected, secular affairs regulated.
Further Evolution:
- Ratilal (1954): property adm can be regulated by law.
- Durgah Committee (1961): Non-essential practices need not receive constitutional protection.
- Sabarimala (2018): Highlighted the continuing debate b/w constitutional morality and denominational autonomy.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could elaborate Article 26(b) analysis (e.g., "Article 26(b) grants religious denominations right to manage affairs in matters of religion, but Supreme Court in Shirur Mutt clarified this doesn't extend to secular administration like financial management")
- Can strengthen Sabarimala reference (e.g., "Sabarimala (2018) highlighted tension when Court applied constitutional morality of gender equality against traditional denominational practices regarding women's entry")
What you wrote:
State Control over Temple Administration to ensure:
→ Financial transparency
→ Protection of temple properties
→ Prevention of mismanagement
→ Accountability of public religious institutions
Egs. → Tamilnadu HR & CE Dept
→ Kerala Devaswom Board
These regulate administration while leaving rituals to religious authorities.
Challenges:
→ Excessive bureaucratic control may dilute Ar. 26(b) autonomy.
→ Allegations of political interference in temple administration.
→ Continuing debate over judicial determination of ERP.
Way forward
State Control over Temple Administration to ensure:
→ Financial transparency
→ Protection of temple properties
→ Prevention of mismanagement
→ Accountability of public religious institutions
Egs. → Tamilnadu HR & CE Dept
→ Kerala Devaswom Board
These regulate administration while leaving rituals to religious authorities.
Challenges:
→ Excessive bureaucratic control may dilute Ar. 26(b) autonomy.
→ Allegations of political interference in temple administration.
→ Continuing debate over judicial determination of ERP.
Way forward
Suggestions to improve:
- Could explicitly examine the statement (e.g., "These examples demonstrate that religious freedom under Article 25 is not absolute as states can regulate temple finances and property management without interfering in worship practices")
- Can add specific challenge examples (e.g., "Excessive control seen in cases like appointment of temple priests by government boards, potentially violating Article 26(b) denominational autonomy")
What you wrote:
[DRAWING: A flow diagram structure. "Religion" has a downward arrow to "Protected". "Administration" has a downward arrow to "Transparent Regulation". Both lead via arrows to a box containing "Religious freedom + Good Governance".]
→ Restrict regulation genuinely to secular functions
→ Strengthen transparent audits & digital governance
→ Preserve ERP while advancing constitutional values of equality and reform.
The constitution neither mandates complete state control nor absolute religious autonomy. Through Ar. 25(2) & 26(b), reinforced by Shirur Mutt, it protects ERP while permitting regulation of secular administration, ensuring balance b/w religious freedom, social reform & accountable governance.
[DRAWING: A flow diagram structure. "Religion" has a downward arrow to "Protected". "Administration" has a downward arrow to "Transparent Regulation". Both lead via arrows to a box containing "Religious freedom + Good Governance".]
→ Restrict regulation genuinely to secular functions
→ Strengthen transparent audits & digital governance
→ Preserve ERP while advancing constitutional values of equality and reform.
The constitution neither mandates complete state control nor absolute religious autonomy. Through Ar. 25(2) & 26(b), reinforced by Shirur Mutt, it protects ERP while permitting regulation of secular administration, ensuring balance b/w religious freedom, social reform & accountable governance.
Suggestions to improve:
- Can strengthen with forward-looking perspective (e.g., "Future temple administration reforms should focus on digital transparency mechanisms while ensuring judicial oversight prevents excessive state interference in denominational autonomy")
Strong constitutional knowledge with good case law references and practical examples. The tabular format and diagram enhance clarity. However, needs more explicit examination of the main statement and deeper analysis of Article 26(b) provisions.
Demand of the Question
- Examine the statement that religious freedom doesn't confer absolute immunity from State regulation
- Reference to Article 25(2) and Article 26(b) in analysis
- Context of State control over temple administration
- Balance between religious freedom and state regulation
What you wrote:
The Constitution mandates a principled intervention, balancing religious autonomy with public accountability. Article 25 & 26 protect religious freedom. Ar 25(2) permits state regulation of secular activities associated with religion, making religious freedom subject to constitutional remedies.
The Constitution mandates a principled intervention, balancing religious autonomy with public accountability. Article 25 & 26 protect religious freedom. Ar 25(2) permits state regulation of secular activities associated with religion, making religious freedom subject to constitutional remedies.
Suggestions to improve:
- Could clarify the constitutional framework more precisely (e.g., "Article 25(2) allows state regulation of secular activities while Article 26(b) protects denominational autonomy in religious matters")
- Can strengthen by mentioning the Essential Religious Practices doctrine as the judicial test for this balance
More Challenges
View All- View Challenge
GS3
Economy
25 Aug, 2026
The recent rise in sugar prices has revived the debate over diverting sugarcane for ethanol production. Examine the economic and environmental significance of India’s ethanol-blending programme and the challenges of balancing food, fuel and farmer interests.
- View Challenge
GS3
Disaster Management
Yesterday
Road accidents in India constitute not merely a transport challenge but a recurring human-induced disaster. Examine the causes of high road fatalities and suggest a disaster-management approach to road safety.
- View Challenge
GS2
Economy
23 Aug, 2026
The escalating US–Canada tariff conflict reflects the growing weaponisation of trade among major economies. Examine its implications for India and the opportunities it creates for Indian trade.
SuperKalam is your personal mentor for UPSC preparation, guiding you at every step of the exam journey.
Download the App
STUDY RESOURCES
CONTACT US
ⓒ Snapstack Technologies Private Limited