New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India expressed grave concern on Thursday regarding the potential societal impact of judicial intervention in religious traditions, suggesting that allowing every ritual to be challenged could lead to an unmanageable wave of litigation. During a hearing by a nine-judge Constitution bench, the court remarked that such constant questioning might eventually destabilise the delicate relationship between faith and the Indian social fabric. The bench is currently reviewing various cases involving religious freedom and gender equality, including the high-profile Sabarimala temple entry issue and the Dawoodi Bohra community’s practice of excommunication.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna noted that religion is deeply intertwined with society in India, and if every individual is permitted to question religious practices in court, it could lead to disputes over even the most minute details, such as the specific hours a temple remains open. The court’s observations came during the examination of a forty-year-old public interest litigation concerning the Dawoodi Bohra community. Justice M.M. Sundresh added that allowing perpetual legal challenges to traditions could result in the fragmentation of religious groups and place an overwhelming burden on the judicial system.
The legal debate centres largely on a request to overturn a 1962 judgement that struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act of 1949. That act had made it illegal for a community to expel its members, but the court at the time ruled that such power was essential to the management of religious affairs under Article 26(b) of the Constitution. Counsel representing the reformists argued that no practice should receive constitutional protection if it negatively impacts fundamental rights. Justice Nagarathna emphasised the need to determine whether these disputes should be resolved within the community or if the state and courts have a legitimate role in intervening.
As the proceedings continue, the court is also considering the Sabarimala case, where the central government has previously defended traditional entry restrictions by citing similar practices in various temples across the country. The government’s stance focuses on the importance of respecting diverse religious traditions that have existed for centuries. The nine-judge bench must now navigate the complex intersection of constitutional mandates and civilisational heritage to define the limits of judicial oversight in matters of faith.
