The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 6, 2026) questioned the maintainability of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) or writ petitions challenging the authority of Dawoodi Bohra community leaders to excommunicate their members.
In 2023, the court had referred to a nine-judge Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on whether the practice of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community could continue as a “protected practice” despite the coming into force of the Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2016.
Courts cannot reform faith, says SC in Sabarimala review
The writ petitions had challenged a 1962 judgment of a five-judge Constitution Bench in the Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin vs The State Of Bombay case. This judgment had upheld the Dawoodi Bohra community leader’s power of excommunication as a part of the “management of religious affairs” enshrined in Article 26(b) of the Constitution. The Dawoodi Bohra reference was later tagged with the Sabarimala case.
On Wednesday (May 6), Justice B.V. Nagarathna, a member of the nine-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, asked senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the writ petitioners, if a Constitution Bench judgment, that too one which had held the fort for over 60 years, could be challenged through PILs, however “reformist” they may intend to be. The judge said the maintainability of the petitions required to be looked into first.
