Secularism in many a time mistaken as non-religious". Explain the concept in the light of freedom of religion.

Secularism Is Not Irreligion

When people call secularism "non-religious," they conflate the French model of laïcité, born of the bloody separation of Church and State, with the Indian experience, where no such adversarial history existed. Since Hindu society never had a centralised Church, the state's relationship with religion in India developed differently, and secularism here does not mean an irreligious state, only one that is neutral in matters of religion. As the author puts it, "in a secular state, the state is only concerned with the relation between man and man; it is not concerned with the relation of man with God," and a devout Hindu, Muslim, or Christian does not cease to be secular by practising their faith. The Supreme Court captured this precisely in the Bommai case, describing secularism as a creed that "treats alike the devout, the antagonistic, and the atheist," embodying what is called positive secularism rather than the American wall of separation.

The Textual Basis: Articles 25 to 28

Article 25 guarantees to every person, not merely citizens, the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health, and the other fundamental rights. Article 26 extends a parallel but distinct freedom to religious denominations, allowing them to manage their own religious affairs, own property, and administer institutions. Article 27 forbids compelling any person to pay taxes whose proceeds are earmarked for promoting a particular religion, while Article 28 restrains religious instruction in institutions wholly maintained by State funds. Together, these provisions do not create a neutral silence about religion; instead, they actively guarantee equal respect and protection to all faiths, which is the very opposite of hostility toward religion.

Distinguishing Freedom of Conscience from Practice

Freedom of conscience, the Shirur Mutt case explained, is "the minimum of religious liberty," an intangible and subjective right that a person cannot be compelled by law to abandon. Unless this inner freedom is also protected outwardly through profession, practice, and propagation, the guarantee would be meaningless. This is precisely why Article 25 protects not just belief but its outward expression: rituals, ceremonies, and modes of worship regarded as integral parts of a religion. Justice Hansaria's observation in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh is instructive here, noting that the Indian concept of "dharma" is broader than the Western notion of "religion," embracing all and excluding none, unlike sectarian religion confined to a limited group.

Illustration: The National Anthem Case

The Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala case illustrates how secularism protects even minority conscience against majoritarian pressure. Three children belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses faith were expelled from school for silently standing, but not singing, the National Anthem, because their faith forbade praising anyone but God. The Kerala High Court sided with the school, but the Supreme Court reversed this, holding that there is no legal obligation to sing the anthem and that the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) includes the freedom of silence. The Court reasoned that respecting the anthem by standing does not violate any fundamental duty, and no citizen can be compelled to act against a genuinely and conscientiously held religious belief. This shows secularism actively protecting religious minorities, not suppressing religious sentiment.

Positive Engagement, Not Studied Indifference

The Aruna Roy case further dismantles the "non-religious" myth. When the National Curriculum Framework introduced value-based education drawing on the basic tenets of all religions, petitioners challenged it as an attempt to "saffronise" education and violate secularism. The Supreme Court rejected this, with Justice Dharmadhikari observing that "complete neutrality towards religion and apathy for all kinds of religious teachings" had not actually helped remove inter-religious misunderstanding over fifty years of the Constitution's working. He held that secularism has a positive meaning: developing mutual understanding and respect between religions, or religious pluralism, and that studying the philosophy of all religions comparatively is neither anti-secular nor a violation of Article 28's bar on compulsory religious instruction. Similarly, in Santosh Kumar v. Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, introducing Sanskrit as an elective subject to help students access India's Vedic and Puranic heritage was held consistent with secularism, since state tolerance of religious and cultural study does not turn it into a theocratic state.

Restrictions Confirm Rather Than Contradict Secularism

Secularism's active character also explains why religious freedom is not absolute. The Mohd. Hanif Quareshi case held that cow slaughter on Bakrid is not an essential Muslim religious practice, and the State could therefore regulate it under Article 25(2)(a), which permits regulation of secular activities associated with religion. In Gulam Abbas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court permitted shifting of graves located on disputed property between Shia and Sunni communities to preserve public order, holding that this did not destroy anyone's fundamental religious rights. These cases confirm that the State's occasional intervention in religious matters, unlike a truly indifferent or hostile state, is calibrated precisely to preserve harmony among all faiths equally.

A Comparative Snapshot

The Ismail Faruqui case summed up this philosophy well: secularism is "one facet of the right to equality woven as the central golden thread" through Articles 25 to 30, meaning any step to arrest communal tension and achieve harmony can never be termed anti-secular. Understood this way, secularism under the Indian Constitution is not the state turning its back on religion but the state embracing every religion with equal warmth, ensuring freedom of religion becomes a shield for pluralism rather than a wall of indifference.