The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, raised worries about excessive judicial involvement in religious affairs, emphasizing that constant challenges to religious customs in courts could disrupt India’s societal fabric. The ongoing Sabarimala reference case involves crucial constitutional issues surrounding religious freedom and judicial oversight of religious practices. Justice B. V. Nagarathna cautioned against the routine acceptance of challenges to religious traditions, highlighting the deep-rooted connection between religion and Indian society.
The Constitution Bench acknowledged the broader implications of its ruling, recognizing that decisions in such matters could impact the civilization as a whole, not just individual disputes. Justice M. M. Sundresh echoed concerns, warning that unchecked judicial scrutiny of religious disputes might lead to the destabilization of religions. The court heard arguments challenging the authority of the religious head of the Dawoodi Bohra community to excommunicate members, citing instances of alleged arbitrary excommunications resulting in social exclusion and violation of fundamental rights.
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, argued against arbitrary excommunications, emphasizing that actions conflicting with constitutional values should not be tolerated in a civilized society governed by the Constitution. He pointed out the far-reaching impacts of excommunication on individuals’ social, secular, and religious lives, affecting aspects like marriage, employment, and community participation. The Constitution Bench questioned the extent to which courts could intervene in internal disputes within religious denominations, with Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah cautioning against diluting protections under Article 26 by examining religious matters for proportionality.
The Bench also addressed the issue of female genital mutilation (FGM) within the Dawoodi Bohra community, with senior advocate Siddharth Luthra arguing against the practice, citing violations of bodily integrity, dignity, and legal protections. Justice Amanullah expressed reservations over comparing FGM with male circumcision, emphasizing the differences between the two practices. The court deliberated on the distinction between male circumcision and genital cutting involving the clitoris, with Justice Joymalya Bagchi underscoring the dissimilarities. The nine-judge Bench, including Justices Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, and R. Mahadevan, will continue hearing the case in the upcoming week.
