The Supreme Court of India observed that if every religious practice or ritual is challenged before constitutional courts, it could lead to excessive litigation, weakening religions and affecting India’s civilizational fabric, while stressing that religion remains deeply connected with the country’s social structure.
The Supreme Court of India said that if every religious practice or ritual were to be contested before constitutional courts, it could trigger a surge of litigation possibly weakening religions and upsetting the country’s civilizational character.
The observations were made by a nine-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, while hearing a set of cases on the scope of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The matters before the Bench include questions related to women’s entry into religious spaces such as the Sabarimala Temple, as well as issues connected to the Dawoodi Bohra community and the practice of excommunication.
Besides the Chief Justice, the Constitution Bench included Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi.
The proceedings arise from a long-standing constitutional dispute involving the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949, which barred excommunication within communities. In 1986, the Central Board of the Dawoodi Bohra Community approached the court seeking a review of a 1962 Constitution Bench decision that had struck down the law.
The 1962 ruling had noted:
“It is evident from the religious faith and tenets of the Dawoodi Bohra community that the exercise of the power of excommunication by its religious head on religious grounds formed part of the management of its affairs in matters of religion and the 1949 Act in making even such excommunication invalid, infringed the right of the community under Article 26 of the Constitution.”
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for a group of reformist Dawoodi Bohras, argued that practices stemming from social or secular behaviour should not automatically be treated as essential religious practices for constitutional protection. He submitted that if a practice harms fundamental rights, it cannot claim protection under Articles 25 and 26 merely because it has a religious connection.
In response, Justice Nagarathna expressed concern about the broader consequences of courts routinely examining religious customs.
She remarked,
“If everybody starts questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court, then what happens to this civilization where religion is so intimately connected with the Indian society,”
She added,
“There will be hundreds of petitions questioning this right that right, opening of the temple, and the closure of the temple. We are conscious of this.”
Justice Sundresh also warned against excessive judicial interference in matters of faith, saying, “Every religion will break and every constitutional court will have to be closed.” He further noted that if every internal disagreement within a religious denomination is taken to court, it could lead to endless disputes.
Justice Sundresh said,
“If the dispute between two entities are allowed then everybody will question everything. In your case there may be a civil wrong committed to you but in another case, another member will say I don’t agree. It is regressive. To what extent can we go in a country like ours which is progressive and on the move is the question,”
Justice Nagarathna also reiterated India’s distinct civilisational identity and its pluralistic traditions. “One of the constants in our Indian society is the relationship of human beings man, woman and child with the religion,” she said, emphasising that diversity is the country’s strength.
She further stated that the Court was concerned about deciding the extent of judicial review over religious practices.
“Now, how a religious practice or a matter of religion is questioned, where it is questioned, whether it can be questioned, whether it has to be a question within a denomination for a reform or whether the state will have to do or you want the court to adjudicate upon all these aspects. This is troubling us.”
She continued,
“What we lay down, is for a civilisation that is India. India must progress despite all its economy, everything there is a constant in us. We can’t break that constant. That is what is troubling us,”
Ramachandran, however, maintained that constitutional values must remain central in a democratic society. He argued that India’s civilisational identity functions within the framework of the Constitution, and practices that conflict with constitutional morality cannot continue simply under the banner of tradition.
He told the Bench that constitutional courts cannot refuse to decide such questions only because similar challenges may arise in the future. He said the judiciary has a responsibility to examine practices that allegedly violate fundamental rights.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE