persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.” 24. “Religion” has been given the widest possible meaning by this Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005 at 1023-1024. In this country, therefore, atheism would also form part of “religion”. But one important caveat has been entered by this Court, namely, that only what is an essential religious practice is protected under Article 25. A few decisions have laid down what constitutes an essential religious practice. Thus, in Javed v. State of Haryana, 2003 (8) SCC 369, this Court stated as under: “60. Looked at from any angle, the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 175(1)(q) and Section 177(1) must fail. The right to contest an election for any office in Panchayat is neither fundamental nor a common law right. It is the creature of a statute and is obviously subject to qualifications and disqualifications enacted by legislation. It may be permissible for Muslims to enter into four marriages with four women and for anyone whether a Muslim or belonging to any other community or religion to procreate as many children as he likes but no religion in India dictates or mandates as an obligation to enter into bigamy or polygamy or to have 329
