Questioning religious practices will break religion and civilisation: Supreme Court in Dawoodi Bohras case
The nine-judge Constitution Bench is hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, and on the ambit and scope of the religious freedom practised by multiple faiths, including Dawoodi Bohras.
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
A nine-judge of the is hearing petitions regarding the scope of religious freedom and the right to excommunicate members, specifically within the Dawoodi Bohra community, and broader issues of discrimination against women in religious places like the . During the hearings, Justices expressed concern that allowing continuous judicial questioning of religious practices could destabilize Indian civilization, which is deeply rooted in religion. The central debate revolves around balancing individual fundamental rights against a religious denomination's right to manage its own affairs.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
This case highlights the enduring tension between individual rights and group rights within the Indian Constitution. guarantees the individual's freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion. Conversely, protects the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. The core legal dispute is whether the practice of excommunication (expelling a member from the community) is a protected 'matter of religion' under or a violation of an individual's fundamental rights under and (Right to Life and Dignity). The petitioners argue that religious practices impacting secular or social rights cannot claim immunity under . The Court must delineate the boundaries of state intervention in religious affairs, particularly when applying the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test (a doctrine used by courts to determine if a practice is integral to a religion and thus protected). UPSC aspirants must deeply understand the conflict between , , and the state's power to intervene for social reform under .
Social
The judges' remarks touch upon the complex relationship between religion, society, and social reform in India. Justice Nagarathna emphasized that religion is intimately connected with Indian civilization and serves as a constant amidst immense diversity. The concern is that excessive judicial intervention might disrupt this delicate social fabric. However, the reformist argument, presented by Raju Ramachandran, asserts that a civilized society governed by a constitution cannot tolerate practices that violate fundamental rights, regardless of their religious origins. This mirrors the debate seen in the case, where the right to equality and non-discrimination (under and ) clashed with religious traditions. The broader question for UPSC is how a progressive, modern state should handle regressive religious practices without alienating communities or threatening pluralism. The debate questions whether reform should be organic (from within the denomination) or driven by state/judicial mandate.
Governance
The hearing underscores the challenges of judicial overreach versus the judiciary's role as the protector of fundamental rights. The Justices voiced apprehension about opening a 'Pandora's box' of litigation if every religious practice becomes subject to constitutional scrutiny, potentially overwhelming the courts. This raises questions about the limits of judicial review in matters of faith and tradition. Does the court have the institutional capacity and legitimacy to adjudicate intricate religious disputes? The petitioners argue that the court cannot 'throw its hands up' and abdicate its constitutional duty to protect citizens from fundamental rights violations, even if it leads to numerous petitions. For Mains, candidates should analyze the balance the judiciary must strike between maintaining judicial restraint in sensitive cultural matters and ensuring constitutional morality prevails over regressive traditions.