Secularism

The first principle

Secularism is the principle that the state does not belong to any religion and treats citizens equally whatever their faith. Western societies arrived at secularism mainly by separating the state from a single dominant church, whereas India had to manage many religions, each with its own internal hierarchies, so Indian secularism asks the state both to respect all faiths and to intervene when a religious practice violates equality or dignity. That double task, respect and reform, explains why Indian secularism is different from the Western model and why it is so often contested.

The core

The Western model

• France (laïcité). The law of 1905 separated church and state, and the state keeps religion out of public institutions; religious symbols such as headscarves were banned in state schools in 2004.
• United States (wall of separation). The First Amendment bars Congress from establishing a religion or restricting its free exercise. Thomas Jefferson described this in 1802 as a "wall of separation between church and state", so the state neither aids nor interferes with religion.
• The common thread is mutual exclusion, which suited societies with one dominant church and a history of religious wars.

The Indian model

• Principled distance. The political theorist Rajeev Bhargava describes Indian secularism as principled distance: the state may keep away from religion, engage with it or intervene in it, depending on which choice better promotes freedom and equality.
• Equal respect. The idea of sarva dharma sambhava, equal regard for all religions, associated with Gandhi, means the state honours all faiths rather than none, and gives aid to institutions of all religions without discrimination.
• Reform. Article 25(2) allows the state to regulate secular activities linked to religion and to open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes, which is how temple entry and the abolition of untouchability became state policy.
• Group rights. Minorities have the right to conserve their culture and run their own educational institutions (Articles 29 and 30), and communities follow their own personal laws in family matters.

Constitutional provisions

• The word "secular" was added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment (1976), though the Constitution was secular in substance from 1950. In Dr Balram Singh v Union of India (November 2024), the Supreme Court dismissed challenges to the insertion of "socialist" and "secular".
• Article 14 guarantees equality before law, and Article 15 bars discrimination on grounds of religion.
• Articles 25 to 28 guarantee freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, the right of religious denominations to manage their affairs, freedom from taxes for promoting a religion, and freedom from religious instruction in wholly state funded institutions.
• Articles 29 and 30 protect minority culture and educational institutions; Article 44 asks the state to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code; and Article 51A(e) makes it a duty to promote harmony transcending religious differences.

Dimensions

• Political. The state must not use religion to win power; in S R Bommai the Court held that a state government that acts against secularism can be dismissed under Article 356.
• Legal. Courts decide where freedom of religion ends and equality begins, using tests such as essential religious practices and constitutional morality.
• Gender. Personal laws and temple rules often affect women most, so many debates on secularism are also debates on women's equality.

In practice

Judgements

• Shirur Mutt (1954): held that religion includes practices as well as beliefs, and that only practices essential to a religion receive protection under Articles 25 and 26, which became the essential religious practices test.
• Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973): laid down the basic structure doctrine, and several judges listed secularism as part of it.
• S R Bommai v Union of India (1994): a nine judge bench held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and that the state must treat all religions equally.
• Aruna Roy v Union of India (2002): held that teaching about the values of different religions in schools does not violate secularism.
• Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017): set aside instant triple talaq by a three to two majority, after which Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.
• Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala (Sabarimala, 2018): allowed women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple by four to one; in November 2019 the broader questions on religious freedom were referred to a larger bench.

Are tolerance, assimilation and pluralism the key elements of Indian secularism?

• Tolerance, yes. Indian traditions of tolerance, from Ashoka's edicts urging respect for other sects to Akbar's sulh i kul and Gandhi's sarva dharma sambhava, give Indian secularism its moral base.
• Pluralism, yes. Indian secularism protects many faiths, personal laws and minority institutions side by side, which is pluralism in law.
• Assimilation, only partly. Shared shrines, festivals and the Bhakti and Sufi traditions show cultural blending, but the Constitution does not require assimilation into one culture; it protects the right to remain different, so assimilation is voluntary rather than a goal of the state.
• What else is needed. These three ideas miss two elements that the Constitution adds: equality of every citizen before law regardless of faith, and the state's power to reform religious practices that violate dignity. Indian secularism is therefore tolerance and pluralism held together by equality, neutrality and reform.

Challenges to cultural practices in the name of secularism

• Courts deciding theology. The essential religious practices test requires judges to decide what is central to a faith, which critics, including some judges, say courts are not equipped to do. Justice Indu Malhotra's dissent in Sabarimala argued that courts should not test religious practices against rationality.
• Bans on traditional practices. Jallikattu was banned in Animal Welfare Board of India v A Nagaraja (2014), then allowed by Tamil Nadu's 2017 amendment, which a Constitution Bench upheld in May 2023 as part of the state's cultural heritage. Animal sacrifice in temples has been restricted by state laws and court orders in some states, as in the Tripura High Court's ban on animal sacrifice in temples (2019).
• Dress and symbols. In the hijab case (Aishat Shifa v State of Karnataka, October 2022), a two judge bench split, with one judge upholding the state's uniform rule and the other holding that it violated the right to choice, so the matter went to a larger bench.
• Uniform Civil Code. Supporters see a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as a step towards equality, especially for women, while opponents see it as a threat to the cultural autonomy of communities. The Law Commission's consultation paper (2018) said a UCC was "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage" and suggested reforming each personal law instead. Uttarakhand passed the first state UCC in February 2024, which came into force in January 2025, covering marriage, divorce, succession and live in relationships while exempting Scheduled Tribes.
• Regulation of temples. State endowment departments administer many Hindu temples, which some argue is unequal treatment of one community.

Critiques of Indian secularism

• Some critics argue that Indian secularism has been applied unevenly, reforming Hindu law in the 1950s while leaving minority personal laws largely untouched, and describe this as "pseudo secularism" or minority appeasement.
• Other critics argue that the real danger is majoritarianism, where the religious identity of the largest community shapes state action and public symbols.
• T N Madan and Ashis Nandy questioned whether a Western idea fits a deeply religious society, while Bhargava sees principled distance as a distinct Indian answer to deep diversity.

Issues and way forward

• Uncertain judicial tests. The essential religious practices test gives inconsistent results; settling the larger bench reference from Sabarimala would clarify the law on religious freedom and equality.
• Gender inequality in personal laws. Unequal rules on divorce, maintenance and inheritance persist; the Law Commission (2018) recommended reforming each personal law towards gender justice, with wide consultation.
• Perceptions of unequal treatment. Claims of appeasement and of majoritarianism both weaken trust, so the same standards must apply to all communities.
• Religion in politics. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 bars appeals for votes on religious grounds, and Abhiram Singh v C D Commachen (2017) read this broadly; consistent enforcement by the Election Commission is needed.

Common confusions

• Indian and Western secularism. The Western model separates the state from religion; the Indian model keeps a principled distance that allows the state to respect and reform.
• Religious instruction and teaching about religions. Article 28 bars religious instruction in wholly state funded institutions, but teaching about religions is allowed.
• Uniform Civil Code and common criminal law. Criminal law already applies equally to all; a UCC concerns family matters such as marriage, divorce, adoption and inheritance.

For the exam

• Keyword bank: laïcité, wall of separation, principled distance, sarva dharma sambhava, essential religious practices, constitutional morality, basic structure, personal laws, Uniform Civil Code, minority rights, pluralism, majoritarianism.
• Previous year questions: Practise the previous year questions on this topic →
• Use in an answer:
  • Introduction (data): India is home to about 80 per cent Hindus and six notified minorities forming about one fifth of the population, so its secularism had to manage many faiths at once rather than separate the state from a single church.
  • Introduction (judgement, quote or report): In S R Bommai (1994) a nine judge bench held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, which means the state must treat all religions with equal respect.
  • Conclusion: Indian secularism is not the absence of religion from public life but the equal presence of all, held within limits set by equality and dignity.
  • Conclusion: The strength of Indian secularism lies in its flexibility, and it will endure if the state applies the same principles of respect and reform to every community.