Whenever our judiciary gives the decision for the religion reform than our fundamentalist friend argue that No one have a right to interfere in our religion and personal laws and Our constitution gives a right to follow their own personal law according to Right to freedom of religion which is mentioned in Article 25 to 28.

For clarifying the doubt of my fundamentalist friend, In this Article I will try to proved that whether the Right to freedom of religion is a absolute right? Whether as the name of right to freedom of Religion individuals right can be violated or not?

I would likely to start my argument with th famous quotation of jurisprudence
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupt absolutely

In our Constitution, Not single law, Article are absolute everyone has its own restriction for instance the restriction of right to freedom of speech and expression has been defined in Article 19 (2) of Indian Constitution. Same formula applies to Right to freedom of religion but some fundamentalist argue that Don't interfere in our religion, our constitution protect us but this is nothing except a narrow and conservative mentality of people. In our Constitution Article 25 (2) clearly says that Right to freedom of religion is subject to public health, morality and other fundamental rights.

It means As the name of right to freedom of religion individual rights can not be violated In the Shayra Bano case Supreme Court clearly held that As the name of right to freedom of religion.

women's right of Article 14, Article 15 , Article 15 (3) can not be violated because Right to freedom of religion are not absolute right.

Now I think my fundamentalist will understand the explanation of right to freedom of religion which has been given from Article 25 to Article 28 . and court have power to interfere in the personal laws if the Individual Right of anyone being violated.