PolityConstitution
News 0 of 36

SC Clarifies Article 25: Propagation Protected, Forced Conversion Not Protected Under Constitution

PolityCORE
Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCSSC GATeachingPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link
07 Apr 2026
~2 min
Source: Indian Express
Key Data:Article 251947
Bodies:Supreme Court
Practice MCQs from today's news ▸
What This Article Covers

1.The Supreme Court explicitly stated that Article 25's freedom of religion protects propagation, but not forcible conversion.

2.This clarification came during arguments citing constituent assembly drafting history, including drafts by K M Munshi and B R Ambedkar.

3.Examiners will focus on the distinction between 'propagation' and 'conversion', and the drafting history that led to the inclusion of 'propagate' in Article 25.

The Big Picture
Prelims · HighMains · High

The Supreme Court clarifies a critical distinction in Article 25's Right to Religion: 'propagation' of religion is protected, but 'forcible conversion' is not. This clarification, made by Justice B V Nagarathna of a nine-judge bench examining Sabarimala review, anchors constitutional debates on religious freedom to constituent assembly discussions.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Article of ConstitutionArticle 25
SC Judge Making ObservationJustice B V Nagarathna
Bench Examining IssueNine-judge bench
Draft Article ProposerK M Munshi
Key Drafting CommitteeSub-Committee on Fundamental Rights (1947)

1-Minute Revision

  • ›Article of Constitution: Article 25
  • ›SC Judge Making Observation: Justice B V Nagarathna
  • ›Target this Data: Article 25 of the Constitution.
  • ›Target this Nodal Body: The Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights (1947).
  • ›Target this Legal Point: The distinction between 'propagation' and 'forcible conversion'.

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

Q1Static LinkageEasy

Which Article of the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to propagate religion?

Q2Statement-basedHard

Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional provision on freedom of religion:

1. The right to 'propagate' religion is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.

2. The right to 'convert' someone by force or inducement is also protected under Article 25.

3. The word 'propagate' was added to the draft Article during the constituent assembly debates at the instance of M Ruthnaswamy.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMedium

Who chaired the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights and Minorities in the Constituent Assembly, as mentioned in the article?

Q4Application/ImpactMedium

What is the primary constitutional distinction highlighted by the Supreme Court judge in the news article?

All 25 MCQs ▸
You finished this topic
Explore Related Topics
Related Current Affairs
Polity Current Affairs

SC Revises Interim Stay, Preserves Allahabad HC Quashing of NSA Detention Under Article 21

The Supreme Court revised its September 23 interim order, restricting the stay to only certain strictures and costs against the Noida DM, thereby preserving the Allahabad High Court's landmark quashing of a DU student's NSA detention. The case also raises serious questions about the SC's roster system and 'out-of-turn' listing, making it a critical study point for judicial review, preventive detention safeguards, and constitutional procedures.

Polity Current Affairs

Patna HC Rules Religious Freedom Under Article 25 Subject to Public Order and Morality

Patna High Court holds that the right to profess and practise religion under Article 25 is not absolute and can be restricted for public order, morality, and health. This reiterates the essential religious practices doctrine and clarifies that constitutional protection does not extend to every mode of exercise. A plea for 300 devotees in a religious procession in Siwan, Bihar, was dismissed citing past law-and-order incidents.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Quashes NEET Protest FIRs Under Article 142, Orders Compensation Policy for Suicide Victims

Supreme Court used Article 142 to quash all FIRs registered against NEET protesters across India, while ordering compensation policy for families of students who died by suicide. This judgment underscores the balance between protest rights and criminal liability, and the government's commitment to address exam leak issues.

Polity Current Affairs

EC Decision-Making Under Scrutiny: Article 324, CEC Act 2023, Dissent Notes Explained

The Election Commission's internal dissent has come under the spotlight after two Election Commissioners recorded objections 14 times in 10 months. This raises critical questions about the functioning of a constitutional body, the balance between unanimity and majority decision-making, and the protection of dissenting voices — a core area for UPSC and State PSC exams.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Rules NCSC Cannot Issue Binding Directions Under Article 338

The Supreme Court clarified that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has only recommendatory and advisory powers under Article 338, not adjudicatory powers. It cannot issue binding orders in service disputes. This ruling sets boundaries for constitutional commissions under Articles 338, 338A, and 338B.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Recognises Student Mental Health Under Article 21 in Sukdeb Saha (2025); NEET Paper Leak Tests Institutional Responsibility

The Supreme Court has expanded the right to life (Article 21) to include student mental health, holding institutions responsible for student suicides under Sukdeb Saha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025). The NEET paper leak of 2026 becomes the first major test of this new constitutional principle, forcing the state to move beyond individual controversies toward structural reform in examinations and recruitment.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Upholds Clinical Establishments Rules 2012: Price Range Fixing Under Article 47

The Union Health Ministry defended the constitutional validity of the 2012 Clinical Establishments Rules before the Supreme Court, arguing that price regulation of healthcare services is essential to fulfill the mandate of Article 47 (DPSP). This is a key case for understanding the balance between fundamental rights (Article 19(1)(g)) and reasonable restrictions in the interest of public health.

Polity Current Affairs

SC in Vihaan Kumar Reinforces Arrest Safeguards: Informing Grounds Mandatory Under Article 22(1), BNSS 2023

SC in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) held that every arrested person must be directly and meaningfully informed of the grounds of arrest, and failure violates Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC (Section 47 BNSS). The verdict also links an unconstitutional arrest to illegal subsequent remand and reiterates Article 21 dignity. For exams, remember the case, the CrPC-to-BNSS section mapping, and the Arnesh Kumar arrest guidelines.