Earlier in the day, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata, appearing for a Parsi Zoroastrian woman, argued that the rights of denominational groups cannot trample on the individual rights of believers | Photo credit: SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (6 May 2026) questioned the maintainability of public interest litigations (PILs) or writ petitions challenging the power of Dawoodi Bohra community leaders to excommunicate their members.
In 2023, the court asked a nine-judge bench to issue an authoritative statement on whether the practice of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community could continue as a “protected practice” despite the coming into force of the Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Remedial) Act, 2016.
The regulations challenged the 1962 judgment of the five-judge Constitution Bench in the case of Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin vs The State Of Bombay. This judgment upheld the power to excommunicate the leader of the Dawoodi Bohra community as part of the “administration of religious affairs” enshrined in Article 26(b) of the Constitution. The Dawoodi Bohra legacy was later identified as the Sabarimala case.
On Wednesday (May 6), Justice BV Nagarathna, a member of a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, asked senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who appeared for the petitioners, whether the Constitution Court judgment, which held the fort for more than 60 years, could be challenged through a PIL. The judge said that the maintainability of the petitions needs to be examined first.
“The way or the means must be as good as the ends… Are you asking us to overturn the verdict of the Constitutional Senate by filing a motion under Article 32 of the Constitution? We are also ultimately conditioned by the harsh, rigid discipline imposed on us. How can we ignore the verdict of the Constitutional Senate on motions under Article 32?” Justice Nagarathna asked.
Mr Ramachandran replied that the petitions in this case were not “lightly drafted” unlike “some of the recent court applications in which, unfortunately and wrongly, the Supreme Court was concerned not only with a lack of judicial discipline but also with a lack of judicial statesmanship”.
He referred to writ petitions challenging the validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which protected the religious character of places of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
“One day a constitution bench says that the Places of Worship Act is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The next day, when a writ petition is filed challenging the validity of the Places of Worship Act, the court issues a notice, creating all levels of tension that the court had to issue an interim order staying further suits… These are the cases that need Mr. Ramachran.”
A 2016 law by the Maharashtra state legislature identified 16 types of social ostracism, made them all illegal and punished the perpetrators with imprisonment for up to three years. One of the 16 was excommunication.
Mr. Ramachandran argued that the excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community directly interfered with human dignity.
“Therefore, it is not a mere imposition of religious discipline, which it can be assumed that every religion requires to preserve its flock. It is a question of the proportionality of the punishment and its impact on human dignity,” he said.
Earlier in the day, senior advocate Darius Khambata, appearing for the Parsi Zoroastrian woman, argued that the rights of denominational groups cannot trample on the individual rights of believers. He stated that Article 26 letter b) aims to protect the autonomy of religious belief vis-à-vis the state and should not be used against the believer.
Published – May 6, 2026 10:27 PM IST
