ASSIGNMENT WORK

OF
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND LEGAL
WRITING

TOPIC:“FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF

PRIVACY :An analysis with reference to Human Right ”

Submitted To School of Law, G D Goenka University

Submitted To Submitted By:

Mr. Azim khan B. Pathan Shaibi Khatana

Professor LLM

School of Law, G D Goenka University 210060301025

DECEMBER, 2021
G.D. GOENKA UNIVERSITY, SOHNA ROAD, GURUGRAM

i
 CERTIFICATE OF SUPERVISOR

This is to certify that Seminar Course entitled “FREEDOM OF

RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF PRIVACY :An analysis with

reference to Human Right ”which is being submitted by Mr. Shaibi

khatana for the award of the degree of LLM is an independent and original

research work carried out by him.

Mr.Shaibi Khatana has worked under my guidance and supervision to

fulfill all requirements for the submission of this seminar course. The

Seminar Course is worthy of consideration for the award of LLM

Degree of School of Law, G D Goenka University, Gurugram.

Signature of the Supervisor

Name of Supervisor
 CERTIFICATE

I, Shaibi khatana (LLM), School of Law, G.D.Goenka University,

Gurugram do hereby declare that the seminar course titled “” is a b

FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND FREEDOM OF PRIVACY

:An analysis with reference to Human Right ”onafide research

work carried out by me under the supervision of Dr. Azim Pathan,

HOD, Sol

It is further declared that wherever, the scholarly work of any other

person has been used, due recognition and patronage has been

provided for the same.

Shaibi khatana

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Completing an assignment successfully is always an arduous task
which can never become successful without active participation of a
large number of people. I would first like to thank my worthy
supervisor Dr. Azim Pathan, HOD, G D Goenka University,
Gurugram for helping and guiding me from the initiation to the
finalization of this Seminar Course. Further, I would like to thank the
university authorities, namely, Professor Dr. Tabrez Ahmed (Pro-Vice
Chancellor and Dean SOL, GDGU), G D Goenka University
Gurugram who have provided infrastructural facilities which helped
me in completing this course.

I am thankful to other Academic, Library and Administrative staff of

the University. I extend my special thanks to Computer Lab Assistant
for helping me edit the final draft. In the end I would like to
acknowledge the unforgettable support of almighty and my family,
friends, without whose support, the completion of this Seminar
Course would have been a much difficult task.

GD Goenka University Shaibi khatana

 “Religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his God.”
Abstract
The kingdom was given the power of God in modern times, that is, to rule. But with great power comes
a great burden. The state must be purposeful, impartial and impartial in order to create equality in a
society governed by the ills of inequality and discrimination. By allowing a place where people are free
from such evils, the State guarantees the natural human rights granted to everyone in the form of
fundamental human rights in our Constitution. In the global arena, we are often connected to each
other in ways we never thought possible. The motivation for preventing and stopping such practices can
be derived from various well-developed international practices. Thus, to honor and protect every human
soul that it gave to the State to protect it, as it should have been.

Introduction

II Part I Fundamental rights and compulsory disclosure

III Part II International Precedents against Compulsory Disclosure

IV Part III Suggestions

V Conclusion
 Introduction
Individually, individuals are required by various government agencies to complete 'forms' or

'declarations' for various purposes ranging from admission to school / university, applying for a

job, applying for a birth certificate, obtaining medical or social benefits, and so on. 1 In many

such forms, there is a column for declaring a person's religion with different categories to choose

from, such as Hindu / Muslim / Christian and others. Generally, completing this column is

mandatory, otherwise the form is rejected as incomplete. A person is permanently denied

employment on the basis of non-discrimination in any category under the religious column that

leads to serious discrimination.2 In such a case, three different basic rights are part of the values

of democracy, equality and non-alignment of the state that are violated by the state. This would

be tantamount to treating a person differently, without intention and good reason, in the same

appropriate circumstances. To answer an important question here, namely, whether the State can

compel a person to disclose his or her religion, a few unexpected questions may also be

incorporated into discussions such as: whether the right to privacy includes the freedom to

express one's religious beliefs? That the right to religious ideas, beliefs, beliefs and worship

includes the right to privacy of one's religious beliefs? This paper is divided into three sections to

answer these questions. Part-I will cover the broader context of the right to dignity, the right to

privacy and the right to religious expression which includes the right to keep one's beliefs

confidential in government. Part II will provide details on international examples against the

mandatory disclosure of religious beliefs in the State. Part III will discuss various areas of

concern that address these concerns by providing strong provisions in their law books.

1
2 Nidhi Sharma and Dilip Singh, “Religion Column Introduced in Indian Citizenship Application Form” The
Economic Times (Oct. 25, 2018), available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/66356023.cms?
utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium =text&utm_campaign=cppst (last visited on Nov. 15, 2019)
2
Ronald Alsop, “Does Religious Bias Begin with your CV?”, BBC (July 31, 2014), available at:
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20140730-reveal-religion-on-your-cv (last visited on Nov. 15, 2019)
Literature Review

Nidhi Sharma and Dilip Singh, “Religion Column Introduced in Indian Citizenship Application

Form” has been analysed and used for better understanding. Ronald Alsop, “Does Religious Bias

Begin with your CV?”, BBC (July 31, 2014),has been studied and analysed. Justice Puttaswamy

case along with The Constitution of India,1950 has been referred.

Research Question:

The statement of problem is that whether freedom of privacy also includes freedom of religion

and what is the relation between these two important freedoms?

Research Methodology:

Doctrinal research method has been used.

Hypothesis:

H0: Right to privacy also includes Freedom of Religion.

H1: Right to privacy doesn’t include Freedom of Religion.

II Fundamental rights and compulsory disclosure

 Right to dignity

The right to life shares an unwavering commitment to human dignity and is found where it is

enshrined in the key words of our Constitution, namely, the Background. The creators aimed to

protect individual rights which included shaping public rights. Therefore, the idea of defending

dictatorship in the life of a 'brotherhood' in the Preamble was invented to give dignity to all.

Undressing a person would deprive him of more than just an animal's existence and physical

existence. The right to dignity includes expressing oneself in various ways without being obliged

to meet other people. The state should follow a ‘reasonable’, ‘fair’ and ‘fair’ process in

accordance with the law in order to limit the right to dignity and try to make it easier for people

with practical steps. Forced entry into a person's mind degrades a person's dignity. A major

principle of the Constitution is achieved when one pursues the pursuit of happiness based on

independence and dignity, essential aspects of privacy. Right to privacy Article 21 of the

Constitution of India enshrines in it the right to privacy. In the case of Kharak Singh v. The State

of U.P.3 The Supreme Court concluded that the 'personal freedom' of Article 21 is sufficient to

accommodate all human rights and freedoms.4 Subba Rao J, writing to a minority, suggested that

the word 'liberty' in Article 21 was sufficient to include the right to privacy and, albeit, not

explicitly stated in the Constitution. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Justice Puttu

swamy (Retd.) V. The UOI5 has viewed privacy not only as a fundamental right under Article 21

but also as a fundamental human right. Privacy is essential for the effective use of other

freedoms enshrined in Part III of the Constitution such as “freedom of speech and expression”,

“freedom of conscience and personal freedom”. There is a consensus on all six different views,

that privacy protects the individual's right to dignity, independence and the control of
3
AIR 1963 SC 1295
4
Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 SCC (Cri) 468.
5
(2017) 10 SCC 1.
information. In this context, the views of Justice Chandrachud (who wrote for himself and the

other three judges) are worth quoting.

Privacy has different meanings that include (i) location control; (ii) independence of the

decision; and (iii) information management. Location control means the creation of private

spaces. Independence of the decision understands deep personal choices such as those that

dominate the breed and the choices that are made public as beliefs or dress codes. Information

management empowers a person to use privacy as a shield to maintain personal control over

personal information. Individuals have the right to independent decision-making, within the

realm of the human mind, to make personal decisions in various aspects of life, including belief

and religion.6 Another immediate right mentioned to the above is the right of a person to hold

that information within the four walls of his or her mind and not to disclose it to the world

without sufficient reason to do so. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and

material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the

author. A person has the right to restrict the publication of personal information without his or

her consent whether it is true or not unless there is a reasonable basis for interference such as

crime prevention, disruption, health and moral protection or the protection of the rights and

freedoms of others. The state does not have unlimited power to limit the right to privacy. 7 The

state must meet three requirements to limit or accept personal privacy. First, the reduction must

find its basis in a clearly defined law. Second, the reduction of confidentiality is intended to

pursue a legitimate purpose and should be reasonable as stated in article 14. Third, the reduction

was in line with the objective that was intended to be achieved. The threefold percolation screen

was designed to avoid self-harm and to protect the right to privacy which is a natural part of

6
Evangelical Fellowship of India v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2012) SCC OnLine HP 5554.
7
Directorate of Revenue v. Mohammad Nisar Holia, (2008) 1 SCC 789, 800
human freedom and life. The collection of personal data for non-essential purposes i.e., other

than the well-being of set-aside categories is not a legal purpose. The reduction of privacy

without reasons for national security, scientific, historical or mathematical purposes is illegal and

does not correspond to the intended purpose. Thus, the obligation of individuals to disclose their

religious beliefs at school and to take them to work is an unfair and unlawful action.

In simple terms, privacy allows for a free mental environment in which one can create one's own

ideas, thoughts and ideas of conscience and religion. Personal information created in a free

environment, where, the state has no right to access it in the form of compulsory disclosure in the

manner set out above. This means what kind of religion or beliefs one wants to follow is a

personal matter. the choice, therefore, must be left to one's own conscience, and at the same time,

a person should not be forced directly or indirectly by the government or private individuals to

disclose his or her religion. Therefore, there is a right for individuals to prevent unauthorized

publication of sensitive personal information and to prevent encroachment on private sites.

Right to Religion

The right to religion Religion is a belief that combines the spiritual condition of man with a

supernatural being. 8The scope of freedom of conscience can be explained by the principles

already established by the constitution. Article 25 (1) guarantees everyone the right to equal

freedom of conscience and the right to freedom of religion and religion. ‘Freedom of conscience’

forms part of the freedom of speech and freedom under section 19 (1) (a) and section 21. The

preamble states that the Indian people have four ultimate goals to achieve, which include

“Justice, Freedom, Equality, and Brotherhood.” Freedom of conscience 9, by its very nature, has a
8
P.M.A Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, 1995 AIR 2001.
9
R. Rajarajan, “Secularism in Indian Politics: Theory and Practice” 68 The Indian Journal of Political Science 406
(2007).
broader meaning than the confession, practice and propagation of religion and must be

interpreted in accordance with the broad principles of disrespect for the country and democracy

that make up the context of our Constitution. From ‘natural rights’ acquired by a person to mere

existence and converted to government by legal rights.10 Such a right may not be invoked in the

case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the

purposes and principles of the United Nations.

There are two aspects of ‘freedom of confession, practice and dissemination of religion’ that

have emerged, firstly the ‘internal’ aspect, where there is complete freedom to hold religious

views and beliefs based on the human conscience and therefore social order cannot be achieved.

and the control of the State and the second is the 'external' part where the exercise of this right

affects the order of the community and is therefore a matter of concern to the State authorities.

Man's religious beliefs come from the depths of the heart and mind and are a matter of devotion,

faith, and devotion to the gods. The State, individual or community cannot compel the disclosure

of personal beliefs because religious beliefs are highly private. The words of the Himachal

Pradesh Supreme Court are apt to quote here: “Man has not only the right to conscience, the right

to religion, the right to change his religion, but the right to keep his beliefs private. . ” The

human mind is an impenetrable barrier to thought and evidence of attack unless a person

expresses or propagates his or her thoughts in a manner that will create social unrest or disrupt

world unity or sovereignty. Man's relationship with his God has nothing to do with the kingdom.

There is a difference between an outsider and an insider. A person's religion comes under the

inner element of the religion of one's life and family and one's home. Thus, the violation of the

state in the internal context of ‘freedom of expression, practice and distribution of religion’,

10
Edwin W. Patterson, “A Pragmatist Looks at Natural Law and Natural Rights” in Arthur L. Harding (ed.), Natural
Law and Natural Rights 62- 63 ( Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas,1955)
would be tantamount to a violation of the religious right not only of that individual but also of his

family.

III International precedents against compulsory disclosure

International law on compulsory religious disclosure, defined by various courts, is extremely

clear. The courts have consistently stressed that a person has the right not to express his or her

beliefs to the State.

United States Supreme Court case in NAACP v. Patterson 11 was challenging the State of

Alabama's request from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

(NAACP) to disclose its list of members. Such significant disclosure of the NAACP membership

list, was considered a violation of party privacy, which is critical to ‘freedom of association’. The

court noted that: We think it is clear that compulsory disclosure of the applicant's membership

may adversely affect the applicant 's and members' ability to pursue their collective effort to

promote beliefs that they are entitled to support. The court said compulsory disclosure would

prevent people from joining the association.12

In July 2001 the Data Protection Authority in Greece lifted the obligation on Greek citizens to

disclose their beliefs on Greek identity cards, on the grounds that such a practice would promote

citizens' prejudices on the basis of their religion and would be illegal. the 'principle of

neutrality',13 the fundamental doctrine of democracy, democracy and the state. Therefore, there

11
NAACP v. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 464 (1958)
12
6 Vasudev Devadasan, The Rajasthan High Court’s Religious Conversion and Marriage “Guidelines”: Some Privacy
Concerns, Indian Constitutional Law and Philosphy (Aug. 28, 2017), available at:
https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2017/08/28/the-supreme-courts-right-to-privacy-judgment-ii-privacy-
theindividual-and-the-publicprivate-divide/(last visited on Nov. 20, 2019
13
Julian Baggini, “A Secular State Must be Neutral' – What does that Mean Exactly?”, The Guardian, Feb. 16, 2012,
available at:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/16/what-mean-secular-state-neutral (last
visited on Nov. 15 2019).
was a belief: No one can be compelled to express, directly or indirectly, his religion or beliefs; as

a result, no one will be compelled to act or to refrain from acting in a manner that could be a

basis for speculation about the existence or any of these beliefs. The democratic and national

policies were given weight. The Court recognized and affirmed the point that the disclosure of

such information to the international community poses a natural challenge to subjugation and

discrimination and would therefore run to the principles of the State. A mandatory requirement

for persons entering public office to forcibly declare their religion under public oath was

challenged and considered a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights which

guarantees "freedom of thought, conscience and religion". Compulsory disclosure of a person's

religion in any form such as a violation of the right to freedom of expression as a person wishes

and the right to keep his religion private, such disclosure is unconstitutional and would be

tantamount to violating fundamental human rights.

A similar thinking can be found in the decision of Sinan Isik v. Turkey 14 where the mere

presence of a religious box in the citizens' compulsory identity card was held as a mandatory

disclosure of religious beliefs. The court held that freedom of expression is a violation of the

right to freedom of expression and belief. or he held such beliefs. That requirement or state of

law violated its promise of religious neutrality to its citizens. According to the court, this would

have led the State to examine the people according to their beliefs, resulting in a non-

discriminatory practice. The court held that the mere existence of a religious box on an identity

document or a form required for such an act violated human rights.

In the case of Dimitras v. In Greece, 15 compulsory disclosure of one's religion to be a witness,

complainant or accused in a criminal case in Greece was considered unconstitutional. The court
14
Sinan Isik v. Turkey (2010)1 ECtHR
15
Dimitras v. Greece, (2010) 18 ECtHR.
further affirmed that ‘freedom of thought, conscience and religion’, which was associated with

the majority, was one of the foundations of the “democratic society” and was an integral part of

the personality of any believer in its religion. Thus, the freedom to express one's religious beliefs

included the right not to be pressured into expressing one's beliefs or beliefs. Thus, ‘freedom of

thought, conscience and religion’, did not allow any compulsory individual to disclose their

beliefs, and such interference was neither appropriate nor consistent with the purpose for which

they were pursuing. Thus, in a democratic society 16 in today's world, where many religions or

branches of the same religion live together within the same population, there may be a need for

restrictions on this freedom in order to unite the interests of diverse groups to ensure that

everyone's beliefs are respected. However, in exercising its sovereign power in this field and in

its relationship with the various religions, denominations, and beliefs, the State has a duty to be

neutral and impartial. If the State fails to ensure neutrality, the maintenance of the structures and

the functioning of democracy will be in jeopardy. The right to freedom of religion has a negative

element to be protected by the State, namely the unwillingness to disclose one's religion which

may lead to the conclusion that a person has certain beliefs or not.

IV Suggestions

16
5European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by
Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, art. 8 and 9.
Various developed, progressive and leading jurisdictions all over the world have explicitly

provided . means against the mandatory disclosure of a person's beliefs or religion in any way or

form in government or in person or in public. Thus, affirming and protecting the ‘right to

dignity’, the ‘right to privacy’, the right to freedom of speech and expression ’, the‘ right to

freedom and the ‘right to religion’ to keep one’s beliefs confidential. Some of them are as

follows:

• Poland: Poland is the most popular country in Europe according to recent research. 17 The

population is predominantly Roman Catholic (87.5% according to the 2011 census). In order to

protect Poland from being a monopoly on a single religion, constitutional authors provided

constitutional measures. The Polish Constitution lists them as legitimate and progressive texts.

The Polish constitution was adopted in 1997 and included ongoing legal protections promoted in

some developed areas. Article 53 of the Polish Constitution provides for ‘Freedom of Religion

and Faith’. Article 7 of Article 53 of the Polish Constitution provides protection against

compulsory disclosure and states: “No one may be compelled by the authorities to disclose his

philosophy of life, his beliefs or his beliefs.”

• Germany: Germany, the most populous country in Europe (lying all over Europe) witnessed

the horrific cleansing of a few on the basis of religion in modern times. 18 About two thirds of the

population believe in Christianity and most of them do not believe in the existence of God.

Germany since 1919 incorporated legal protection from compulsory national disclosure.

Provisions borrowed from the Weimar Constitution 1919 to the German Constitution of 1949 in

17
3Harriet Sherwood, “Christianity as Default is Gone: The Rise of a non-Christian Europe”, The Guardian, March
21st 2018, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/21/christianity-non-christianeurope-
young-people-survey-religion (last visited on Nov. 14
18
Zensus 2011, available at: https://ergebnisse.zensus2011.de/?locale=en#StaticContent:00,,,(last visited on Nov.
14, 2019).
order to protect basic human rights and to fulfill the State's mission. Article 136, section 3 of the

1919 Weimar Constitution, which is also part of the current Constitution in the Federal Republic,

states: No one shall be required to state his or her beliefs. Authorities will have the right to

inquire about a person's membership in a religious community only in terms of the degree to

which the rights or duties depend on it or the requirements of a statutory statistical examination.

V Conclusion
The rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution are those of the person, his or her

character and the nature of his or her personality, and no exceptions to the rule of law from the

State unless there is a reasonable basis for interference. In the Indian Constitution ‘the right to

privacy’ is a fundamental right and protects the individual’s independence in the making of

personal decisions that govern the way of life and the control of personal information. ‘The right

to religion’ includes ‘freedom of conscience’ and ‘the right to freedom of expression, practice

and dissemination of religion’ to everyone and equal rights.

Religious beliefs become an integral part of the religion of one's life and one's family and one's

home protected by the intervention of the State. International examples from around the world

have faced similar questions and have fought for the right to keep personal beliefs private.

Compulsory disclosure does not encourage people to associate with a particular religion,

violating the ‘principle of neutrality’ and plurality. Finally, we have looked at examples of legal

protections covered by various laws that have been developed to protect their citizens from any

form of lawlessness on the part of the government. As U.S. President Thomas Jefferson pointed

out, human religion is a matter of right and wrong between man and God, and therefore forcing

anyone to disclose and explain such a connection would be inhuman, degrading, and illegal.

everyone. A person's religion, belief or belief has nothing to do with government. Moreover, the

disclosure of religious beliefs does not serve a purpose. The State should abolish the religious

column in all its ‘forms / proclamations’ and refrain from seeking information about a person’s

religious beliefs in all its nationalistic purposes except for research purposes. This will ensure

that the state fulfills its real obligations which are to protect its citizens from any bias or

discrimination and adheres to the fundamental constitutional principles such as nationalism and

pluralism which are part of the fundamental element of the Constitution.