Current Affairs Topics Quiz Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

BKTC proposes ban on ‘non-Sanatanis’ at Badrinath, Kedarnath

March 11, 2026 6 min read Art & Culture Polity & Governance GS Paper 2 (Polity Fundamental Rights Secularism)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The Badrinath-Kedarnath Temple Committee (BKTC) formally approved a resolution on March 10, 2026, banning entry of "non-Sanatanis" (non-Hindus) into 47 shrines under its jurisdiction, including Badrinath Dham and Kedarnath Dham
  • The BKTC defined "Sanatani" broadly — those who apply vermillion, chant mantras, recite chalisas, and have faith in Shree Badri and Kedar
  • Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists are exempt from the ban (the committee cited Article 25 which defines "Hindus" to include these communities for certain purposes)
  • Muslims and Christians would be barred from entering the temple premises under the proposed restriction
  • The BKTC cited Article 26 of the Constitution — the right of religious denominations to manage their own religious affairs — as legal justification
  • Opposition parties including Congress termed the move unconstitutional and divisive; legal experts raised concerns about misinterpretation of Articles 25 and 26

Static Topic Bridges

Article 25: Freedom of Conscience and Free Profession, Practice and Propagation of Religion

Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees every person the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion — subject to public order, morality, and health. Critically, Article 25(2)(b) allows the state to make laws providing for social welfare and reform, including throwing open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. The Explanation to Article 25 states that references to "Hindus" shall include references to persons professing the Sikh, Jain, or Buddhist religion — the provision the BKTC cited.

  • Article 25(1): Right to freely profess, practise, propagate religion — subject to public order, morality, health, and other Fundamental Rights
  • Article 25(2)(a): State can regulate or restrict economic, financial, political, or secular activities associated with religion
  • Article 25(2)(b): State can legislate for social welfare/reform; can throw open Hindu temples to all Hindus (including SC/ST)
  • Explanation I to Article 25: "Hindus" includes Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists — used by BKTC to exclude Muslims/Christians while retaining Sikh/Jain/Buddhist access
  • Misapplication concern: This Explanation was inserted for social reform (temple entry for untouchables) — not to exclude non-Hindus; critics argue BKTC has inverted its intent

Connection to this news: The BKTC's invocation of Article 25's Explanation to justify exclusion of non-Hindus reveals a constitutional misreading. The provision was designed to expand access (ensure all "Hindus" including SCs can enter temples), not to restrict access of non-Hindus. Courts may examine whether this constitutes a misuse of constitutional language.

Article 26: Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs

Article 26 grants every religious denomination — or any section thereof — the right to (a) establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, (b) manage its own affairs in matters of religion, (c) own and acquire movable and immovable property, and (d) administer such property in accordance with law. This is the primary constitutional basis the BKTC invoked for its exclusion resolution.

  • "Religious denomination": Three requirements per SP Mittal v. Union of India (1983) — common faith, common organisation, distinctive name
  • Article 26(b): Manage own affairs "in matters of religion" — the key phrase; courts distinguish between purely religious matters (State cannot interfere) and secular matters associated with religion (State can regulate)
  • Limitation: Article 26 rights are subject to public order, morality, and health — not absolute
  • State can regulate administration (secular aspects) of religious institutions
  • Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay (1954): Established that the State cannot manage purely religious affairs but can regulate secular activities of religious institutions

Connection to this news: The BKTC is arguing its resolution falls within "managing religious affairs" under Article 26(b). However, access restrictions at public religious sites are not purely internal religious matters — they have significant civil rights implications. Whether Kedarnath and Badrinath qualify as purely denominational temples (accessible only to specific religious group) or public temples (open to all under Article 25's social reform mandate) will be the central constitutional question if the restriction is challenged in court.

Secularism in India: Constitutional Provisions

India's secularism — described by the Supreme Court as a "basic feature" of the Constitution (S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994) — is different from Western secularism. India practices "positive secularism" or "sarva dharma sama bhava" (equal respect for all religions), not strict separation of church and state. The State may positively engage with religion for reform purposes (such as the Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Marriage Act) but must not discriminate on grounds of religion (Articles 14, 15, 16).

  • "Secular" added to the Preamble by 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976
  • S.R. Bommai case (1994): Secularism is a basic feature; State governments violating it can be dismissed under Article 356
  • Article 14: Equality before law — any discriminatory exclusion from public places on religious grounds can be challenged
  • Article 15(2): No citizen shall be subjected to any disability, liability, restriction, or condition on grounds of religion in respect of access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, and places of public entertainment (courts debate whether temples are covered)
  • Article 17: Abolition of untouchability — strengthened by temple entry laws

Connection to this news: If Badrinath and Kedarnath are treated as "public temples" (rather than purely denominational), excluding citizens on religious grounds may conflict with Articles 14 and 15. The distinction between a private denominational shrine and a temple receiving state support and public patronage will determine which constitutional provisions apply.

Temple Management Laws and State Control

Unlike private religious endowments, temples like Badrinath and Kedarnath are managed under state legislation. The BKTC itself is a statutory body created under the Uttarakhand Char Dham Shrine Management Act, 2019, which replaced the Badrinath-Kedarnath Temples Act, 1939. This statutory character — the temple committee being a government-appointed body operating under state law — complicates the claim that its decisions are purely internal religious affairs immune from constitutional scrutiny.

  • Char Dham Shrine Management Act 2019 (Uttarakhand): Governs BKTC; members partially appointed by state government
  • BKTC: Statutory body — not a purely private denominational organisation
  • State-controlled temples cannot easily claim Article 26 protection against state oversight (since they ARE created by state law)
  • Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Acts: Various states (Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka) regulate temple administration; Supreme Court has upheld these as valid state regulation of secular aspects
  • Shirur Mutt case (1954): SC distinguished between matters of religion (core) and matters associated with religion (regulable); state cannot interfere with the former

Connection to this news: The BKTC's statutory nature is crucial — a government-appointed committee banning citizens on religious grounds may be directly challengeable as a violation of Fundamental Rights, unlike a purely private religious institution making the same decision. The Uttarakhand government's eventual stand on the BKTC resolution will be constitutionally significant.

Key Facts & Data

  • BKTC: Badrinath-Kedarnath Temple Committee; statutory body under Char Dham Shrine Management Act 2019 (Uttarakhand)
  • Resolution date: March 10, 2026; covers 47 temples including Badrinath Dham and Kedarnath Dham
  • Exempted: Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists (citing Article 25 Explanation that defines them as "Hindus" for certain purposes)
  • Barred: Muslims and Christians
  • Article 25: Freedom to profess, practise, propagate religion; Explanation includes Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists in "Hindu" definition
  • Article 26: Religious denominations can manage own affairs — invoked by BKTC; limited to matters of religion, subject to public order/morality
  • Article 14: Equality before law — potential ground for challenging exclusion
  • Article 15(2): No discrimination in access to public places — applicability to temples debated
  • Secularism: Basic feature of Constitution (S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994)
  • Key cases: SP Mittal v. Union of India (1983) — religious denomination test; Shirur Mutt (1954) — religious vs secular activities
  • BKTC Chair Hemant Dwivedi's rationale: Banning entry of non-Hindus "necessary to maintain sanctity of temples"
  • Congress MLA Qazi Nizamuddin: Called the move unconstitutional and divisive