Interpretation of Right to Religion: A Non-Absolute Fundamental Guarantee

Abstract: Some court decisions go beyond a simple understanding of right and wrong because the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to religion as a strong and protected fundamental right. As India is a secular country, justice is intended to remain supreme; however, conflicts often arise when religious beliefs and practices intersect with constitutional principles. These conflicts become more evident when differing notions of justice clash with religious customs.

When the right to religion comes into conflict with the right to life and peaceful living, it challenges the very foundation of religious freedom. In contrast, the right to religion is not absolute and cannot be exercised in a manner that violates the right to life. While the Constitution guarantees freedom to practise religious customs, it does not permit activities that cause harm, nuisance, or disturbance to others. 

Introduction: Religion has been a long-standing and sensitive issue in India. The debate became more prominent during the British period and especially at the time of Partition, when India witnessed large-scale disturbances and violence involving different religious communities such as Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. These events deeply affected the social and constitutional framework of the country.

Even in the 21st century, the issue of religion remains highly relevant. In order to ensure good faith, Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to religion as a strong and protected fundamental right. “ a fundamental human right allowing individuals and communities to hold, practice, and change beliefs without coercion, encompassing freedom of conscience, profession, practice, and propagation, but is generally subject to public order, health, and morality”. However, Indian courts have clearly held that this right is not absolute. Like the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19, the right to religion is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and health.

Nevertheless, this still remains a big topic for debate. When this right clashes with other fundamental rights, it leads to harmful and disturbing practices. For instance, when a wedding is held in a residential colony and loud celebrations cause noise pollution, it can amount to a violation of the right to life, as it is harmful to others such as elderly people and children. This article aims to draw a line between when a celebration becomes a disturbance result in noise pollution, and what kind of celebration under the right to religion is granted and acceptable.

Research Methodology: This research is doctrinal research. The research uses secondary sources for the study, such as the Constitution of India, the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000, decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts, principles of tort law, articles, films, government notifications. This article interprets these sources to examine, under Article 25 of the right to religion which religious celebrations are protected, and where the law draws the line when such celebrations result in noise pollution and violate the right to life and peaceful living under Article 21.

Legal Framework: The legal framework governing religious celebrations and noise pollution in India is based on:

Under the aspect of the right to religion, people have the right to practise, profess, and propagate religion. This includes rituals, religious ceremonies, and celebrations. Since our Constitution believes in respecting all religions equally and not hurting anyone’s religious sentiments, all celebrations are dearly celebrated. However, this right cannot be exercised at the cost of others. Genuine religious practices must be conducted peacefully, must not disturb public order, must not harm public health, and must not violate the rights of others.

Article 21 is not only about “not being killed”, but it empowers us to have a peaceful, healthy, and decent life without worthless interference. It says that the quality of life is everyone’s right to have—whether elders, young people, children, or even unborn ones. It has highlighted that life means life with dignity. Science has clearly proved that excessive noise can harm a person, which causes high blood pressure, hearing loss, and most importantly, mental stress.

The WHO believes that physical and mental health are both equally important for a human being, and these are the prime elements of a healthy life. Therefore, the country must have an intensive focus on protecting both.

In tort law, such actions are described as nuisance. When someone creates noise that disturbs the peace of others and affects their health, comfort, or property, it can amount to nuisance and the person responsible can be held liable. This is considered an indirect interference with the rights of others. Further, depending on whether a group of people is affected or only an individual, it may be classified as public nuisance or private nuisance.

Statutory under the framework, the Environment (Protection) Act and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 do not only talk about providing suggestive rules, but also say that they mandate standards that the government shall enforce to protect Article 21, the right to life. They have classified four areas with noise standards such as industrial, commercial, residential, and most importantly, silent zones (within 100 meters of hospitals, educational institutions, and courts).

Rule 5 has significance as it states that loudspeakers can be operated only with the authority of the competent authority. They are completely banned at night (10 PM to 6 AM), except in closed premises like auditoriums or for public emergencies.

But the most relevant update, where penalties were introduced. Authorities now have the power to seize machines or devices which can create harmful noise, such as diesel generators or loudspeakers. If the authority feels that the noise level has exceeded anything above 70 dB for prolonged periods is harmful or ambient noise standards by 10 dB (A), they can issue an immediate order to stop the noise and may also impose fines depending on the severity and location.

Judicial Interpretation: Many times, Indian courts have interpreted through various cases that Article 25, the right to religion, is not absolute and cannot be justified on the grounds of noise pollution, and reasonable restrictions can be imposed on it.

Re: Noise Pollution (2005)  is a landmark Supreme Court case in which the Court recognised the right to life under Article 21 and held that restrictions must be placed on the use of loudspeakers and firecrackers during night hours, 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. The Central Pollution Control Board did a study in Delhi to find out how loud it was during the Diwali festival. From 1999 to 2002, it was noted that the noise levels rose and went beyond the limit on all Diwali days during those years.

The Court also mandated prior written permission for the use of loudspeakers. It highlighted the right to sleep and the need to protect public health, while balancing religious freedoms with the right to a pollution-free environment.

“In Nand Kishore Sharma v. Union of India,  the Rajasthan High Court held that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act does not violate the right to life of the unborn child. At the same time, the Court clarified that the right to life of the unborn is not absolute, though it is recognised and protected under the law.

Section 416 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if a woman sentenced to death is pregnant, the execution of her sentence must be postponed. This clearly shows that the law seeks to protect life and not to destroy it. For better reference, a similar situation is portrayed in the movie Jawan, where the mother’s death sentence is paused because she is pregnant, and the court orders that the punishment be carried out only after the child reaches a certain age.

Shayara Bano V. Union Of India, a landmark case, the Court Laid down that triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) is unconstitutional and manifestly arbitrary. This practice under the exceptions is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court observed that ‘what is bad in the Quran cannot be good in Shariat, and what is bad in theology is bad in law as well.’ It further held that divorce of such an instant nature cannot be treated as a ‘rule of decision’ under any law. For better reference, the 2025 Hindi film Haq, starring Emraan Hashmi and Yami Gautam, portrays the situation of a Muslim woman who is divorced through triple talaq. The film is directly inspired by the landmark Shah Bano case of the 1980s, a real-life legal battle in which a Muslim woman sought maintenance after being abandoned by her husband.

Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, a landmark case, women of menstruating age (10–50 years) were banned from entering the temple. The Court held this practice to be unconstitutional and stated that it violated Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25 of the Constitution. It ruled that exclusion based on biological factors is not an essential religious practice and amounts to a violation of equality, dignity, and gender justice.

Critical Analysis: Even though India does not lack laws, the right to religion has always remained an issue that often divides the country and pushes it in different directions. Many political parties have even made such issues their primary agenda to build political support. In such a situation, if India ever faces serious internal breakdown, religion may become one of the major reasons behind it.

When we talk about religion, India sometimes fails not because of a lack of intention, but because of its huge population and vast diversity. Recognising and balancing every religion equally becomes extremely difficult. This is one of the reasons why the laws made by the State are not always able to deliver justice, as they are not uniform in nature and cannot ensure consistent decisions in every situation.

Another major loophole is that, in our country, laws are often framed in an unclear manner and there is a lack of properly authorised officers. Even though one of the best features of our Constitution is that it is flexible and not rigid, timely changes are still not made.

For instance, we all know that noise pollution is a serious environmental crisis. Laws have been introduced to control it, but they are not implemented effectively. There are neither strict punishments nor strong penalties for those who violate these laws. Moreover, there is a lack of awareness. Legal knowledge is not properly shared with the public, so people do not even know that such laws exist in India. Without awareness and enforcement, laws remain only on paper.

Practices such as giving and taking dowry have become deeply embedded under the shadow of religion. Although dowry is strictly prohibited by Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, people still continue the practice by disguising it as “gifts.” Our religious customs have become so orthodox that, even in the presence of law, people choose not to follow it.

The Constitution does its duty by creating laws, but the real question is whether those laws are actually implemented. The answer, quite clearly, is no. As Indian citizens, we ourselves are also a major reason why our laws remain weak and ineffective.

In the United States referring to Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith and Ward v. Rock Against Racism, the government is allowed to regulate the circumstances of speech and worship without violating the First Amendment. These regulations are known as TPM restrictions—Time, Place, and Manner restrictions:

Time: “No loudspeakers after 11 PM.”

Place: “No amplifiers in residential zones.”

Manner: “No sounds exceeding 80 decibels.”

However, the government cannot be hostile towards religion while making such rules. In the U.S., the stake for religious groups is much higher. If a religious group can prove that a noise ordinance was specifically designed to stop their call to prayer or religious bells, the law will be struck down under the test of strict scrutiny.

On the other hand, if the noise regulation is a neutral and general rule applicable to the entire city, then the right to religion does not give anyone a “license to be loud.”

In 2026, the balance between the right to life and the right to religion has become sharper. The law protects “essential religious practices”, which include those fundamental rituals without which the spirit and value of a religion would be lost. Such practices include prayer, chanting, rituals, and traditional music played within a place of worship and with reasonable noise, so as to maintain both the religious spirit and the decency of law.

However, the use of high volume sound—such as beating of drums, playing loud music, or broadcasting religious songs at excessive levels, especially in sensitive or protected areas, or with the intention of disturbing others—is not permitted. The judiciary applies the concept of “aural aggression”, under which religious sounds are allowed only within reasonable limits. Excessive sound, particularly during midnight hours, is restricted, except for up to 15 days in a year for specific festivals such as Diwali, Navratri, or Eid. Even during such occasions, silent zones like schools and hospitals must be respected.

In certain states, the bursting of “firecrackers during Diwali has been banned due to severe noise and environmental pollution”. These measures are also taken to protect animals, such as dogs and cats, from disturbance and harm caused by excessive noise. This reinforces the principle that no religion permits pollution.

Suggestion: Religion is a sensitive topic for many people. Many consider it a gift from their ancestors and wish to pass it on from generation to generation. For some, religion gives meaning to life itself. Therefore, it is important to understand that no religion teaches people to harm others. This is why we must find a moderate way to create balance, without taking sides.

• Just listening is not the answer: We often follow rituals without questioning why we do them. Asking questions is not disrespectful; rather, it shows curiosity and a deeper understanding of one’s religion. When someone asks about your faith, you should be able to explain it clearly. This also helps you critically examine whether your actions are right or wrong. In today’s world, learning to be responsible for one’s actions is essential.
• Expecting change is not against religion: Changes in religious practices over time do not mean disrespect towards religion. Accepting change keeps religion relevant in the present era.
• Clear structure in law-making: Whenever laws are framed, there should be no room for confusion. Ambiguities should be minimised to avoid future disputes.
• Empowering authorities for protection: Laws should empower authorities to act effectively in the best interest of citizens while also upholding the rule of law.
• Respect to all religions: Our Constitution speaks of a secular India, which means that no religion is considered superior to another and no one can be discriminated against on the basis of religion. It should also start recognising that a person may believe in God without strictly following rituals and still be regarded as a religious person. Orthodoxy should not dominate society, and religious beliefs should not become a reason for creating disputes or division.
• Save the Environment: do not cause harm in the name of religion.

Conclusion: Religion is a part of identity in India, but even under the right to religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution, it cannot be treated as an absolute right. At times, it is exercised at the cost of others’ well-being, peace, and dignity. No fundamental right can be exercised without considering equality and the rights of others. At times, it even worsens environmental crises. In such situations, taking necessary steps becomes extremely important. No right should have such unchecked power that it creates further crises instead of resolving differences and disputes.

The fact that a fundamental right is not absolute signifies that no one is above the law and everyone must be treated equally, with due care for public health and safety. When the exercise of a right endangers others—including women, the elderly, children, and even the unborn—it must be regulated in a manner that does not violate other fundamental rights such as Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21, and even Article 25 itself.

Our laws should be framed in a manner that leaves no scope for doubt and strengthens the idea of a truly secular nation, upheld by the authority and spirit of the Constitution.