Article 27 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision that reflects the secular character of the Indian state. It is enshrined within Part III of the Constitution, which deals with Fundamental Rights, guaranteeing individuals certain freedoms and protections against state actions. This article specifically addresses the relationship between state finance and religion, ensuring that public funds collected through taxation are not used to favour or promote any particular religion.
The article safeguards the principle of religious neutrality by preventing the state from levying taxes where the revenue generated is earmarked for the promotion or maintenance of a specific religion or religious denomination. This prohibition reinforces the idea that the state should not identify itself with or endorse any single religion, thereby upholding the right to religious freedom for all citizens equally.
Original Text
Article 27. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion. No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.
Detailed Explanation
Article 27 prohibits the state from levying taxes for the purpose of promoting or maintaining any particular religion or religious denomination. Let’s break down the key components:
- “No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes”: This clearly states that the prohibition applies to compulsory exactions that are in the nature of ’taxes’. A tax is a compulsory payment levied by the government for public purposes without reference to any special benefit to be conferred on the payer. This is distinct from a ‘fee’.
- “the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated”: The restriction applies only when the revenue generated from a tax is specifically set aside or earmarked for the expenses related to the promotion or maintenance of a particular religion. If tax revenues are pooled into the general government fund and then spent on activities that might incidentally benefit religious institutions as part of broader social welfare schemes (like providing basic amenities, law and order, etc.), it would not violate Article 27, provided it is not for the promotion of a particular religion.
- “promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination”: This is the core of the prohibition. The state cannot use tax money to uplift, propagate, or sustain one religion or a group within a religion (denomination) specifically. This ensures state neutrality.
- Promotion: Refers to activities that encourage the growth or propagation of a specific religion.
- Maintenance: Refers to supporting the ongoing activities, institutions, or practices of a specific religion.
- Particular religion or religious denomination: The ban is on favouring one religion over others. The state is not prohibited from spending money on general welfare measures that might benefit people of all religions, or on activities that ensure the peaceful co-existence of all religions, or even on regulating religious institutions generally (often funded by fees, not taxes).
Distinction between Tax and Fee: The Supreme Court has clarified the distinction between ’tax’ under Article 27 and ‘fee’. A fee is a payment for a specific service rendered or benefit conferred, broadly corresponding to the expenses incurred by the government in performing that service. Regulatory fees levied on religious institutions (e.g., for the administration of religious endowments) are permissible under the Constitution (e.g., Article 26(c) allows religious denominations to own property and administer it in accordance with law), as they are for the purpose of regulation and administration, not for the promotion of the religion itself. Such fees are generally seen as payment for services rendered by the state in managing or regulating the affairs or properties of religious institutions, ensuring proper administration and preventing mismanagement. Since Article 27 only prohibits taxes, regulatory fees are outside its scope.
In essence, Article 27 reinforces the secular principle by preventing the state from using its coercive power of taxation to financially support or favour any specific religion, thus ensuring equal respect for all religions and preventing the state from having its own religion.
Detailed Notes
- Article 27 is a fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution.
- It prohibits the state from levying taxes for the benefit of any specific religion.
- No person can be legally forced to pay taxes whose proceeds are specifically designated for promoting or maintaining a particular religion or religious denomination.
- The key elements of the prohibition are:
- It applies only to ’taxes’, not ‘fees’.
- The tax proceeds must be ‘specifically appropriated’ for the purpose.
- The purpose must be the ‘promotion or maintenance’ of a ‘particular religion’ or ‘religious denomination’.
- ‘Tax’ is a compulsory exaction for public purposes without a direct quid pro quo (benefit in return).
- ‘Fee’ is a payment for a specific service rendered, roughly proportionate to the cost of the service.
- Regulatory fees on religious institutions (e.g., for administration of endowments) are permissible as they are for services provided by the state for regulation, not for promoting the religion itself.
- Article 27 prevents state favouritism towards any single religion, upholding the principle of secularism.
- It does not prohibit the state from spending public funds on general welfare activities or providing common secular services that may incidentally benefit all religious communities equally.
- It does not prohibit the state from regulating the secular affairs of religious institutions, which may involve collecting fees for such services.
- The focus is on preventing the state from financially endorsing or propagating one religion using public funds collected through taxation.
Additional Comments
- The distinction between tax and fee under Article 27 has been a subject of judicial interpretation, notably clarified in early Supreme Court cases. The purpose for which the collection is made is critical.
- This article, along with other secular provisions like Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, and the Preamble, shapes the secular character of the Indian state, which is often described as having ‘positive secularism’ (equal respect for all religions) rather than ’negative secularism’ (strict separation of state and religion).
- Article 27 ensures that citizens are not compelled to contribute financially through taxes to a religion they do not profess or which the state chooses to support.
- The prohibition is on appropriating tax revenue for a particular religion. The state can, however, spend funds for the general upliftment of all communities, which may include religious groups, or for inter-faith harmony.
Summary
Article 27 of the Indian Constitution prohibits the state from compelling any person to pay taxes specifically allocated for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. This fundamental right distinguishes between taxes and regulatory fees, allowing the state to charge fees for services like administering religious institutions but preventing the use of tax revenue to favour or support a single religion, thereby reinforcing the secular foundation of the state.