SC 9-judge bench cautions against excessive judicial intervention in religion
Synopsis
A nine-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench, hearing the Sabarimala reference, sounded a rare civilisational alarm on 7 May — warning that unchecked judicial scrutiny of religious practices could fracture India's plural fabric. The bench's oral observations, alongside arguments on Dawoodi Bohra excommunication and FGM, signal that the court is wrestling with the hardest boundary in constitutional law: where fundamental rights end and religious autonomy begins.
Key Takeaways
A nine-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant heard arguments in the Sabarimala reference matter on 7 May 2025 .
Nagarathna warned that indiscriminate challenges to religious practices before constitutional courts could disrupt India's civilisational fabric.
Sundresh cautioned that unchecked judicial scrutiny could cause every religion to "break".
Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran argued that the Dawoodi Bohra community's excommunication power causes "civil death" and violates Articles 21 and 25 .
The Bench also examined female genital mutilation (FGM) in the Dawoodi Bohra community; justices rejected attempts to equate it with male circumcision.
Hearings will continue next week , with the eventual ruling expected to set a landmark precedent on judicial review of religious practices.
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday, 7 May expressed strong reservations about excessive judicial intervention in religious matters, with judges orally observing that indiscriminate challenges to religious practices before Constitutional courts could disrupt the civilisational fabric of India.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, was hearing arguments in the Sabarimala reference matter — a case that encompasses broader constitutional questions on the scope of religious freedom, denominational rights under Articles 25 and 26, and the extent of judicial review over religious practices.
Key Observations from the Bench
Justice B. V. Nagarathna remarked that religion remains deeply intertwined with Indian society and cautioned against courts routinely entertaining such challenges. "Once everyone starts questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court, then what happens to this civilisation, where religion is so intimately connected with Indian society? There will be hundreds of petitions questioning this right, that right, opening of temple, closure of the temple," she orally observed.
Justice Nagarathna further noted that any ruling by the Constitution Bench would carry implications "for a civilisation" and not merely for individual disputes. "What is unique about India? We are a civilisation despite having so much plurality and diversity. One of the constants in our society is the relationship between human beings and religion. We cannot break that constant," she added.
Justice M. M. Sundresh echoed these concerns, warning that indiscriminate judicial scrutiny of religious disputes could destabilise religions themselves. "Everybody will question everything. Every religion will break," he orally observed.
The Dawoodi Bohra Excommunication Challenge
The Bench was hearing submissions by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, which is challenging the power of the Dai — the religious head of the community — to excommunicate members.
Ramachandran argued that the power of excommunication had allegedly been exercised arbitrarily in several cases, resulting in social ostracism and what he described as the "civil death" of individuals. He contended that such practices violated fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
"We are a civilisation under a Constitution, and therefore nothing which goes against the grain of the Constitution can be countenanced in a civilised society governed by the Constitution," the senior counsel submitted. He further argued that excommunication affects not only religious participation but also the social and secular life of individuals, including marriage, employment, and access to community spaces.
The nine-judge Bench, however, repeatedly questioned the extent to which Constitutional courts could adjudicate competing claims arising within religious denominations. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah orally observed that if courts begin examining proportionality in matters carrying "even a slight tinge of religion", the protection guaranteed under Article 26 could itself stand diluted.
Female Genital Mutilation Also Examined
The Constitution Bench also took up the issue of female genital mutilation (FGM) within the Dawoodi Bohra community, following submissions by senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, who argued that the practice violated bodily integrity, dignity, and penal law protections.
Justice Amanullah expressed strong reservations over attempts to equate FGM with male circumcision, remarking, "What are you talking! Get your facts clear. It is just the opposite." Justice Joymalya Bagchi similarly observed that circumcision of the penis could not be equated with genital cutting involving the clitoris.
What Happens Next
The nine-judge Bench — also comprising Justices Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, and R. Mahadevan — will continue hearing the matter next week. The outcome is expected to set a significant precedent on the limits of judicial review in religious affairs, with implications well beyond the Sabarimala reference itself.
Point of View
The argument that courts must stay out becomes harder to sustain. The FGM dimension adds further complexity, testing whether bodily harm can ever be shielded behind denominational rights. The bench's eventual ruling will need to draw a line that neither hollow out religious freedom nor immunise demonstrable harm from constitutional scrutiny.
NationPress
10 May 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Sabarimala reference case before the Supreme Court?
The Sabarimala reference is a matter before a nine-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench examining broader constitutional questions on religious freedom, denominational rights under Articles 25 and 26, and the limits of judicial review over religious practices. It arose from an earlier Supreme Court verdict on entry of women into the Sabarimala temple, which was subsequently referred to a larger bench for authoritative guidance.
Why did the Supreme Court caution against excessive judicial intervention in religion?
On 7 May 2025, justices including B. V. Nagarathna and M. M. Sundresh orally observed that unchecked judicial scrutiny of religious practices could disrupt India's civilisational fabric and potentially destabilise religions themselves. The bench noted that any ruling would have implications for an entire civilisation, not just individual litigants.
What is the Dawoodi Bohra excommunication dispute about?
The Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community is challenging the power of the Dai — the community's religious head — to excommunicate members. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran argued the power has allegedly been exercised arbitrarily, causing social ostracism and 'civil death', and violating fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution.
What did the Supreme Court say about female genital mutilation in the Dawoodi Bohra community?
The nine-judge bench examined the practice of FGM within the Dawoodi Bohra community after submissions by senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, who argued it violated bodily integrity and dignity. Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Joymalya Bagchi firmly rejected attempts to equate FGM with male circumcision, with Justice Amanullah stating the two are "just the opposite".
When will the Supreme Court next hear the Sabarimala reference matter?
The nine-judge Constitution Bench is scheduled to continue hearing the matter next week. The bench comprises CJI Surya Kant, Justices B. V. Nagarathna, M. M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Joymalya Bagchi, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, and R. Mahadevan.
