BackLAW
Sabarimala hearing: SC questions maintainability of PILs on Dawoodi Bohra excommunication
The Supreme Court on May 6, 2026 questioned the maintainability of PILs challenging the Dawoodi Bohra community’s power to excommunicate members, as it weighs whether a 1962 Constitution Bench judgment should be revisited. The proceedings reference past judgments and statutes, including a 2016 act protecting social ostracisation and a 2023 referral to a nine-judge Bench. Arguments on human dignity and denominational autonomy featured prominently.
Why It Matters
If PILs challenging excommunication are deemed maintainable, it could open avenues to revisit long-standing constitutional interpretations of religious autonomy and the state’s limits, with wide implications for religious practices and individual rights.
Timeline
6 Events
May 6, 2026: Khambata argues denominational rights vs individual rights
May 6, 2026
Senior advocate Darius Khambata argued that the rights of denominational groups under Article 26(b) protect the autonomy of a religious denomination against the state, and should not be used to override the rights of individual believers.
May 6, 2026: Ramachandran argues petitions are not lightly drafted
May 6, 2026
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the petitioners, said the petitions were carefully drafted and contrasted them with recent writ petitions about the Places of Worship Act, arguing for circumspection and judicial discipline in challenging a Constitution Bench judgment. He noted that excommunication directly touches human dignity.
May 6, 2026: Hearing – maintainability of PILs questioned
May 6, 2026
During the hearing before a nine-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice B.V. Nagarathna questioned whether a Constitution Bench judgment that has guided the law for over six decades could be challenged through PILs or Article 32 petitions, stressing the need to first decide maintainability.
2023: Court refers Dawoodi Bohra matter to nine-judge Bench
2023
The court referred the matter to a nine-judge Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on whether excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community can continue as a ‘protected practice’ despite the 2016 Act.
2016 Maharashtra Act identifies social ostracisation types
2016
The Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2016 identified 16 types of social ostracisation, including excommunication, and prescribes penalties up to three years’ imprisonment for perpetrators.
1962 judgment: Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin vs The State Of Bombay
1962
Writ petitions challenged the 1962 Constitution Bench judgment that upheld the Dawoodi Bohra community leader’s power of excommunication as part of the 'management of religious affairs' under Article 26(b).