A nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court cautioned on Thursday that allowing the judiciary to adjudicate every aspect of religious ritual could lead to the fragmentation of faiths and threaten the very fabric of Indian civilization.
The remarks were made during a high-stakes hearing to determine the scope of religious freedom and the extent to which constitutional courts can intervene in practices deemed discriminatory or regressive. The bench is currently examining a series of petitions, including those related to the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple and the practice of excommunication within the Dawoodi Bohra community.
Led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, the bench—which includes Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi—expressed deep concern over the long-term implications of constant legal challenges to religious traditions.
Justice B V Nagarathna highlighted the unique nature of Indian society, where religion and daily life are intimately intertwined. “If everybody starts questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court, then what happens to this civilisation?” she asked, noting that India remains a unified civilization despite its immense plurality and diversity.
Justice Nagarathna emphasized that the relationship between human beings and religion is a “constant” in Indian society that must be preserved. “What we lay down is for a civilisation that is India. India must progress… we can’t break that constant,” she added.
The bench suggested that opening the door to every individual grievance against a ritual could overwhelm the legal system. Justice M M Sundresh warned that if every dispute between entities were permitted judicial review, it could lead to a total breakdown.
“Every religion will break and every constitutional court will have to be closed,” Justice Sundresh remarked. He questioned the extent to which the court should intervene in a country that is moving forward, noting that while some issues may stem from civil wrongs, allowing every member to voice disagreement with a ritual is “regressive.”
The current deliberations stem largely from a 1986 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Central Board of the Dawoodi Bohra Community. The petition seeks to overturn a 1962 judgment that struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949. That 1962 ruling held that the power of a religious head to excommunicate members was part of the “management of its affairs in matters of religion” and was protected under Article 26(b) of the Constitution.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing reformist members of the Dawoodi Bohra community, argued that practices impacting fundamental rights should not be immune to restriction.
“A practice which is conducted in response to secular and social actions of an individual cannot be the subject of Constitutional protection under Article 25… and consequently cannot be a ‘matter of religion’ under Article 26,” Ramachandran submitted.
In response to the court’s concerns about an influx of petitions, Ramachandran maintained that the judiciary cannot “throw hands” simply because the task is difficult. He argued that since India is a civilization governed by the Constitution, any practice that contradicts constitutional values cannot be allowed to continue in a civilized society.
The 9-judge bench continues to hear arguments as it navigates the delicate balance between protecting the internal autonomy of religious denominations and upholding the fundamental rights of individual citizens.
