Questioning religious practices will break religion and civilisation: SC in Dawoodi Bohra case

The Supreme Court's nine-judge Constitution bench, including Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, is hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places (including discussions around Sabarimala) and the ambit of religious freedom across faiths. The hearing debates whether certain practices fall within constitutional protections under Articles 25/26 or lie outside as issues of civil conduct. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran argued that practices tied to secular actions cannot be protected as matters of religion under Article 25/26, while Justice Nagarathna cautioned that questioning religious practices could undermine India's civilizational fabric and pluralism, asking, 'what happens to this civilisation where religion is so intimately connected with the Indian society'. Ramachandran countered that India is a civilisation under the Constitution and the court must balance reform with constitutional limits, warning against a regressive expansion of petitionable issues in a progressive country.

The Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community filed a public interest litigation in 1986 seeking the setting aside of the 1962 judgment.

A Constitution bench held that excommunication by a Dawoodi Bohra religious head, as part of internal management of religious affairs, is protected. It also held that the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949, which sought to invalidate such excommunication, infringed the community's right under Article 26 of the Constitution.