In theory, secularism means the State doesn’t favour one religion over another. In practice, many countries have complex relationships with religious institutions – managing temples, funding pilgrimages, giving grants to schools run by religious bodies, and so on.

Constitutional questions arise when public money or State machinery seems too closely tied to one faith. Courts often ask:

• Is the benefit religion-neutral or open to all faiths on equal terms?
  
• Is the scheme serving a secular purpose – like heritage preservation, education, or social welfare – even if the institution is religious?
  
• Is the State acting as a neutral regulator, or becoming a promoter of a particular belief system?
  

Sometimes, judicial opinions differ. One judge may see temple management by the government as preventing mismanagement and protecting devotees; another may see it as unnecessary interference with religious autonomy.

The broader idea is that the State should treat all communities with equal respect, and avoid using taxpayer money as a tool to gain religious brownie points. Where funding is tied to genuinely secular goals – like preserving historic buildings, supporting hospitals or schools – courts are more comfortable.

Ultimately, secularism is less about removing religion from society and more about ensuring that law and public policy don’t unfairly tilt toward any one faith.