Type: Prelims Only

Why in the News

The Supreme Court of India, during hearings linked to the Sabarimala Temple review case, questioned the maintainability of PILs challenging the practice of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community.

Background of the Case

• Challenge relates to the power of Dawoodi Bohra religious leaders to: Excommunicate members from the community
• Based on the 1962 judgment in: Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin vs State of Bombay
• The practice of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community is a long-standing and controversial religious authority exercised by its head, the Dai-ul-Mutlaq. 
  • It involves the formal expulsion of a member, resulting in a “civil death” where the individual is barred from communal assets like mosques and burial grounds.

1962 Supreme Court Judgment

• Upheld excommunication as a protected religious practice under Article 26(b) 
• Article 26(b) grants religious denominations the right to manage their own religious affairs.

Maharashtra Social Boycott Law (2016)

• Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2016
• Prohibits various forms of:
  • Social boycott
  • Ostracisation
• Makes excommunication punishable

Key Constitutional Questions

• Religious Rights vs Individual Rights
  • Whether denominational rights under Article 26 can override: Human dignity and Individual freedoms
• Maintainability of PILs
  • Can a Constitution Bench judgment be challenged through: PILs under Article 32?

Important Constitutional Provisions

• Article 32Article\ 32Article 32
  • Right to constitutional remedies
  • Allows citizens to approach Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights
• Article 26Article\ 26Article 26
  • Freedom to manage religious affairs by denominations