India, as a secular nation, is characterised by its vibrant diversity of faiths, traditions, and cultures. The Constitution enshrines both the right to freedom of religion and the secular fabric of the State. Yet, tensions often arise when individuals from one faith are invited to participate in the religious or cultural practices of another. Questions emerge: Does such participation amount to a violation of constitutional rights? Does it offend Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution?
Karnataka High Court recently addressed this contentious issue in H.S. Gaurav v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2025), where petitions challenged the invitation of Ms. Banu Mushtaq, a Muslim author and social activist, as the Chief Guest for the inauguration of the Dasara festival at the Chamundeshwari Temple in Mysuru. The petitioners argued that such participation by a non-Hindu violated their fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26.
The Court dismissed these contentions, holding that participation in another religion’s festival does not infringe constitutional rights. This article explores the constitutional framework, arguments presented, judicial reasoning, and broader implications of this ruling.
Constitutional Framework
Article 25: Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice, and Propagation of Religion
- Guarantees every individual the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.
- Subject to public order, morality, and health.
- Permits the State to regulate secular activities associated with religion.
Article 26: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs
- Grants religious denominations the right to manage their affairs in matters of religion, establish institutions, and administer property.
- Also subject to public order, morality, and health.
The key question is whether inviting or allowing a person from another faith to participate in rituals violates these provisions.
Karnataka High Court Case (2025)
Factual Background
- The Government of Karnataka invited Ms. Banu Mushtaq, a 78-year-old Muslim author and Booker Prize winner, as the Chief Guest for inaugurating the Dasara festival at Chamundeshwari Temple.
Petitioners challenged this invitation, arguing that:
- Rituals like lighting the lamp and offering flowers must be performed only by Hindus.
- The invitation violated Articles 25 and 26.
- Ms. Mushtaq had allegedly made “anti-Hindu” statements in the past.
The petitioners relied on the Shirur Mutt case (1954), Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal (2016), and Sri Venkataramana Devaru (1958) to support their contention that religious rituals must align with denominational rights.
State’s Response
The Advocate General argued:
- Dasara inauguration is a State-sponsored function, not a strictly temple ritual.
- In the past, individuals from diverse backgrounds—including Muslims and Christians—have been invited.
- A 2016 government circular mandated free entry to all in temples, irrespective of religion, caste, or gender.
- Participation of Ms. Mushtaq is symbolic, not a violation of religious customs.
Court’s Observations
Articles 25 and 26 are not offended
- Petitioners’ right to practice their religion remains unaffected.
- No religious denomination claimed its rights were curtailed.
Past practice
- Previous inaugurations included educationists, scientists, and other distinguished personalities, irrespective of religion.
Applicability of Precedents
- Shirur Mutt dealt with Mathadhipati’s rights—not applicable.
- Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal is concerned appointment of Archakas, not relevant.
- Venkataramana Devaru involved denominational rights under Article 26(b)—not in issue here.
Principle Upheld
- Participation of a person from one faith in another faith’s festival does not violate constitutional rights.
Court’s Constitutional Approach
1. Secularism and State-Sponsored Festivals
- The Court emphasised that Dasara inauguration is a State event.
- Indian secularism is not about the strict separation of religion and State but about equal respect to all religions (“Sarva Dharma Sambhava”).
- Thus, inviting a Muslim author is a celebration of inclusivity, not a constitutional violation.
2. Freedom of Religion v. Cultural Participation
- Article 25 protects the right to practice religion but does not bar others from respectfully participating in ceremonies.
- Presence or symbolic acts by individuals of another faith do not curtail anyone’s religious freedoms.
3. Denominational Rights under Article 26
- These rights are vested in religious denominations, not individual petitioners.
- Since no denomination managing Chamundeshwari Temple objected, the petitioners lacked standing to challenge the invitation.
4. Judicial Precedents Clarified
- Shirur Mutt (1954): Protected Mathadhipati’s rights to manage religious institutions.
- Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal (2016): Limited to Archaka appointments.
- Sri Venkataramana Devaru (1958): Concerned with temple entry for all classes of Hindus.
- None supported the petitioners’ claim.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice and Justice C.M. Joshi stated:
“In the present case, we are unable to accept that any legal or constitutional right of the petitioners is violated by extending the invitation to respondent No.4 to inaugurate the State sponsored Dasara festivities. Participation of a person practicing a particular faith or religion, in celebrations of festivals of other religion does not offend the rights available under Constitution of India. In our view, the extension of invitation to respondent No.4 does not fall foul of any of the values enshrined in the Constitution of India.”
Broader Constitutional and Social Implications
- Promoting Inclusivity: The Court’s decision reinforces India’s secular ethos by affirming that interfaith participation enriches cultural celebrations. This prevents religious exclusivity from undermining national unity.
- Preventing Majoritarianism: Had the Court accepted the petitioners’ claim, it would have legitimised exclusion based on religion—contrary to Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
- Harmony Between Faith and State Functions: By distinguishing State-sponsored events from purely religious rituals, the Court balanced faith autonomy with constitutional inclusivity.
Conclusion
Karnataka High Court’s judgment underscores a vital principle: Participation in another religion’s festival does not violate constitutional rights. Rather, it fosters inclusivity, cultural exchange, and national unity. Articles 25 and 26 safeguard the right to practice one’s religion but do not create an exclusive zone where others are prohibited from respectfully participating in ceremonies.
In a country as diverse as India, constitutional secularism requires not just tolerance but also celebration of interfaith harmony. The ruling serves as a reminder that India’s strength lies in its ability to integrate differences into a collective cultural identity.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams