Many provisions of the Constitution directly or indirectly recognize the identity and rights of religious communities and groups.

Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees to "all persons", equally, full freedom of conscience and of profession and practice of religion. Article 26 registers and recognizes existence of various religious communities by guaranteeing certain specified rights and freedoms to "every religious denomination or any section thereof". Most certainly, the Constitution does not frown upon special religious identifies and on the identification of religious groups for the protection of their general or special rights and interests.

The Constitution itself makes certain special provisions for particular religious communities, including the following:

I.  Article 25, Expl. 1: saying that Sikhs have a fundamental right to wear and carry kirpans.

II.  Article 48: directing the State to prohibit cow-slaughter (directive upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Hanif Quraishi, AIR 1952, SC 731, on the ground, inter alia, of general "Hindu reverence" for the cow I.)

III. Article 290A: making a provision for an annual expenditure of Rs.46.5 lakhs from the Consolidated Fund of Kerala and Rs.13.5 lakhs from that of Tamil Nadu for the "maintenance of Hindu temples and shrine" in those States.

Inclusion of these special provisions for certain religious communities makes it abundantly clear that reasonable provisions an be lawfully made for all or particular religious communities - especially to meet the Constitution's own stress on justice, equality and fair deal to all. Article 15(1) of the Constitution prohibits "discrimination" on the ground of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. Clauses (3) and (4) of Article 5 say, in effect, that notwithstanding Article 15(1) the State can make "any special provision" for certain specified "classes". The two provisions are, clearly, interlinked and are to be interpreted coherently with reference to each other. The "classes" referred to in Article 15(4) are to be crystallized and identified with reference to the provision of article 15(1). A religious community or group is, thus very well covered by term "classes" occurring in Article 15(4) - as much as it may cover particular castes, races and linguistic groups.

Article15(4) allows "special provisions" also for Scheduled Castes ... Scheduled Castes are identified by the Constitution (SCs) Order 1950 and its later amendments. This order originally provided that a person belonging to a particular caste included among the officially identified 'Scheduled Castes' would be covered by the list only if he was a "Hindu by religion" and not otherwise. The order was later amended to allow Scheduled Castes status first to Sikhs and then to Neo Buddhists ... Thus, all the "special provisions" made for the Scheduled Castes are, in effect, reserved for Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. If these provisions are valid under the Constitution and are not hit by Article 15(1) & (2) despite the clear prohibition of religion-based discrimination under those clauses - then, on the same footing, "special provisions" for religious minorities, especially their backward sections, also cannot be hit by Clauses (1) & (2) of Article 15. They are also, equally, entitled to the protection of clause (4) of Article 15. Religion, race, caste and sex are all bracketed together under Article 15 and treated alike as functional bases of group identity. ... Clause (4) is not and cannot be kept limited to caste based identities. It covers also all other identities indicated by Clauses (1) of Article 15, including religion-based identities.

Article 15(4) of the Constitution makes a reference to Article 29(2), saying that the latter provision also shall not bar making special provisions for the advancement of 'socially or educationally backward" classes of citizens. Article 29(2) refers, inter alia, to religion and language. Reading the two provisions together, it is clear that "special provisions" referred to in Article 15(4) can be lawfully made by the State, among others, also for particular religious communities and linguistic groups.

In the Mandal Commission case (AIR 1993 SC 477) the Supreme Court affirmed that the "special provisions" for specified "classes of citizens" permitted by Article 15(4) are "means of achieving" equality ... The court said, in express terms, that "caste" represents only one such identifiable "class" and that the State could lawfully go to also to groups, sections and classes based on other identifies. Religion is one such "identify" covered by the provisions of Article 15 - if one coherently reads all its clauses together. In the Mandal Commission case the Court clearly said that a religious community "as whole" may be found to be "socially backward" so as to be covered by Article 15(4). Article 38(2) of the Constitution directs that the State shall "in particular" endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, "not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people". Each religious minority is, certainly, a "group of people" in terms of this provision.

Article 46 of the Constitution directs the State to promote "with special care" educational and economic interests of "the weaker sections of the people" (other than Scheduled Castes and Tribes whom it especially mentions separately) ... In a country like India where the majority community is so predominant, the minorities have to be treated as the "weaker sections" within the meaning of article 46.

There is, thus, nothing in the Constitution making it doubtful whether minorities, based on religion or language, can be lawfully identified as particular classes of citizens requiring special protection and safeguards .... Religious minorities - like religion based Scheduled Castes - can be treated as specified identities entitled to special protection by the State ... They are among the "classes of citizens" entitled to "special provisions" under Article 15(4), "groups of people" to be reckoned with for the "elimination of inequalities" under Article 38(2), and "weaker sections or people" requiring "special care" under Article 46. In view of the above-stated Constitutional position, all special laws enacted and measures provided for protecting and safeguarding the interests and rights of religious and linguistic minorities ... are perfectly valid and lawful ... (Source: The Statesman, 3 January, 1999)