Article 27

India's Constitution-makers wanted the state to remain neutral among religions (secularism), while still allowing general welfare or regulatory taxes that might incidentally benefit religious institutions along with others. Article 27 draws a line: taxes cannot be created specifically to fund one religion's promotion or upkeep, ensuring taxpayers of other faiths (or none) aren't forced to bankroll a religion they don't practice. It reflects lessons from history where state-supported churches or religions caused resentment among minorities.

Courts have distinguished between a 'tax' (compulsory, for general public purposes) and a 'fee' (paid for specific services, like temple administration or maintenance), holding that Article 27 applies only to taxes, not fees. In cases involving state-collected fees for managing Hindu temples (e.g., under state Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Acts), courts have held such fees are for regulating and ensuring proper administration of religious institutions—not for 'promoting' a religion—so they don't violate Article 27, as long as the money isn't used to spread or endorse the religion itself but merely to administer it fairly.

• Myth: Article 27 means the government can never collect money related to religious places.
  Fact: Courts have clarified that fees (as opposed to taxes) charged for regulating or administering religious institutions—like ensuring proper management of temple funds—do not violate Article 27, since they aren't used to 'promote' a religion but to oversee it (simplified).
• Myth: This Article bans all religious charity or donations.
  Fact: It only restricts compulsory taxes specifically earmarked for one religion; voluntary donations or general taxes not tied to religious promotion are unaffected.