Sabarimala Reference 2026: After Questioning the Sabarimala PIL, the Supreme Court Turns Its Scepticism on the Dawoodi Bohra Excommunication Plea
In a striking display of judicial consistency, the nine-judge Constitution Bench — having questioned why the Sabarimala PIL was entertained at all — immediately asked the same uncomfortable question about a decades-old Article 32 petition challenging excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community. The bench's message was pointed: the Court cannot change its colours overnight.
What Happened on May 6, 2026
The ninth day of the Sabarimala Reference 2026 hearings took an unexpected turn when the nine-judge Constitution Bench — led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant — pivoted from the primary Sabarimala temple-entry dispute to scrutinise the procedural footing of a separate but linked case: a writ petition filed by reformist members of the Dawoodi Bohra community challenging the practice of excommunication that has governed that community for centuries.
The context was significant. A day earlier, on May 5, the bench had questioned why the Indian Young Lawyers Association had filed a public interest litigation — an Article 32 writ petition — to challenge the Sabarimala women-entry ban rather than pursuing other available remedies. The judges had pointedly asked whether that PIL should ever have been entertained.
Yesterday we were saying, why was that writ petition entertained on Sabarimala. Today we can't change our colour. Why should your writ petition also be entertained? We are the same nine people here. We have to be consistent.Justice B.V. Nagarathna — from the bench, May 6, 2026
The observation — simple in its logic, devastating in its implication — revealed something important about where the bench's thinking may be heading: that the Court is taking procedural propriety as seriously as the substantive constitutional questions before it.
Case Reference
Main case: Kantaru Rejeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (Sabarimala Reference)
Linked case: Reformist Dawoodi Bohra members' Article 32 petition challenging the 1962 ruling in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay
Bench: Nine-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI Surya Kant
Hearing day: May 6, 2026 (Day 9 of Sabarimala Reference hearings)
Background: What Is the Dawoodi Bohra Excommunication Dispute?
The Dawoodi Bohras are a sub-sect of Shia Muslims numbering in the millions, primarily in India. Their community is headed by a supreme religious leader — the Dai al-Mutlaq — who exercises comprehensive temporal and spiritual authority over community members. Among the most controversial of his powers is the authority to excommunicate, or baraat, members who challenge his position or violate community norms.
Excommunication under Dawoodi Bohra practice is not a mild censure. It carries severe social consequences: an excommunicated member is denied access to the community mosque (masjid), barred from community burial grounds, excluded from all communal ceremonies, and effectively cut off from the social and religious life of their family and community. Senior Advocate Ramachandran, appearing for reformist petitioners, described the practical effect as leading to the breakdown of marriages, loss of employment, and complete social ostracism.
Excommunication led to the break of marriages, loss of employment, complete social ostracism — and most importantly, if a person is excommunicated, they can neither go to the mosque nor be buried in the community graveyard. An individual's Article 25(1) right is effectively taken away.Senior Advocate Ramachandran — appearing for reformist petitioners
Reformist members of the community — those who have challenged the Dai's authority or advocated for internal democratic accountability — have been living with these consequences for decades. The first petition challenging excommunication reached the Supreme Court in 1986. It has been pending, in various forms, for forty years.
The 1962 Ruling and Its Long Shadow
The Dawoodi Bohra excommunication dispute is not uncharted legal territory for the Supreme Court. In 1962, a Constitution Bench of the Court — in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay — upheld the Dai's authority to excommunicate community members.
The judgment, authored by then Chief Justice B.P. Sinha, struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949 — a law that had made excommunication of any religious community member illegal. The Court held that the Act was unconstitutional because it violated the Dawoodi Bohra denomination's right under Article 26(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. The power to excommunicate, the 1962 bench held, was an exercise of internal denominational discipline — not a punitive measure — and was integral to preserving the community's religious structure.
For reformist petitioners who filed the 1986 challenge, that ruling is the primary obstacle. To invalidate excommunication, they must first persuade the Court to overrule its own 1962 precedent. This is where the procedural problem arises.
The Procedural Problem: Can a Writ Challenge a Supreme Court Judgment?
The bench's discomfort on May 6 was rooted in a fundamental question of constitutional procedure. The reformist petitioners had filed their challenge as an Article 32 writ petition — the provision that gives every citizen the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights.
But what they were effectively seeking was the overruling of the 1962 Constitution Bench ruling in Sardar Syedna. This raises a stark procedural issue: a writ petition is not the appropriate vehicle to challenge a Supreme Court judgment. The prescribed remedies for such a challenge are a review petition (which must be filed within a limited time) or a curative petition (an extraordinary remedy for exceptional cases). The Court observed that the petitioners had not exhausted either route before filing their writ.
⚠ Procedural Concern Flagged by the Bench
The nine-judge bench noted that the Article 32 writ petition filed by the reformist Dawoodi Bohra members is effectively a challenge to a 1962 Supreme Court ruling. The Court indicated this appeared legally unsustainable — a review petition or curative petition would have been the proper remedy. The bench clarified it was not examining the merits of the excommunication issue but the manner in which the challenge was brought.
Justice Nagarathna's observation made the bench's position explicit: since the very same nine judges had questioned whether the Sabarimala PIL (also filed as an Article 32 writ) should have been entertained, judicial consistency demanded they apply the same scrutiny to the Dawoodi Bohra writ. To treat one differently from the other would be intellectually incoherent.
How the Bench Reacted
Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Procedural scepticArticulated the consistency principle most clearly — if the bench questioned the Sabarimala PIL yesterday, it must apply the same standard to the Dawoodi Bohra writ today. She noted the similar Article 32 route in both cases.
CJI Surya Kant
Concern notedThe bench, led by the CJI, jointly raised the procedural concern. The Court has not ruled on it yet — the maintainability question remains open as arguments continue.
Seven other justices
Silent so farJustices Sundresh, Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Masih, Varale, Mahadevan, and Bagchi have not yet publicly signalled their views on the maintainability of the Dawoodi Bohra writ.
The Sabarimala Link: Why This Case Is Here at All
The Dawoodi Bohra excommunication petition's presence before the nine-judge bench is not accidental — it is the product of a deliberate 2023 referral. In February 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held that the excommunication question was inextricably linked to the same broader constitutional issues that the Sabarimala reference was already examining: the meaning of "essential religious practices," the scope of Articles 25 and 26, and the interplay between denominational autonomy and individual fundamental rights.
The logic of the 2023 referral was sound. The Dawoodi Bohra case raises exactly the same Article 26 tension that animates the Sabarimala debate: when a religious denomination claims the right to manage its own affairs (Article 26), and an individual member claims that the denomination's exercise of that right violates their fundamental right to religion (Article 25) or equality (Articles 14–15), which prevails? The nine-judge bench is the first court in India's history to have the numerical authority to definitively answer that question.
Senior Advocate Ramachandran's argument — that when Your Lordships examine the interplay between Articles 25 and 26, it is not merely about temple worship — captures this precisely. The Dawoodi Bohra case proves his point: the same constitutional tension between denominational authority and individual freedom arises equally in a Muslim community's excommunication practices as it does in a Hindu temple's entry restrictions.
What Hangs in the Balance
If the writ is held maintainable
The bench will proceed to hear the Dawoodi Bohra excommunication challenge on the merits. The 1962 ruling in Sardar Syedna will be examined for reconsideration. The outcome could curtail the denomination head's power to excommunicate and set a precedent for all religious communities' internal disciplinary powers.
If the writ is held not maintainable
The reformists will be directed to file a curative petition instead — an extraordinary remedy with a very high threshold. The 1962 ruling would stand undisturbed for now. The substantive question of whether excommunication violates fundamental rights would go unanswered in these proceedings.
The stakes extend beyond the Dawoodi Bohra community. If the Court rules that excommunication practices can be judicially reviewed against fundamental rights, it will have profound implications for how Indian courts treat all internal religious discipline mechanisms — from caste-based community boycotts to denominational membership rules in every faith. The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's argument in the Sabarimala reference, that a Court that categorically refuses to examine religious custom could never have abolished sati, applies with equal force here.
Conversely, a ruling that upholds denominational autonomy under Article 26 would reassure religious communities across faiths that their internal governance — including discipline and membership — remains beyond the reach of courts, provided it does not cross certain extreme thresholds.
Case Timeline: Dawoodi Bohra Excommunication at the Supreme Court
1949
Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act enacted
The Bombay Legislative Assembly passes a law making excommunication of any religious community member illegal, directly targeting the Dawoodi Bohra Dai's powers.
1962
Supreme Court upholds excommunication in Sardar Syedna
A five-judge Constitution Bench, led by CJI B.P. Sinha, strikes down the 1949 Bombay Act as unconstitutional. The power to excommunicate is held to be protected under Article 26(b) as a matter of denominational religious management.
1986
Reformists file writ petition in the Supreme Court
Excommunicated Dawoodi Bohra members approach the Supreme Court by way of Article 32, challenging the constitutional validity of the excommunication practice. The petition lies pending for decades.
Oct 2022
Five-judge bench reserves order on referral question
A Constitution Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul hears arguments on whether the Dawoodi Bohra excommunication case should be referred to the nine-judge Sabarimala bench and reserves its order.
Feb 2023
Case referred to nine-judge Sabarimala bench
The five-judge bench holds that the 1962 ruling in Sardar Syedna requires reconsideration in light of the Sabarimala reference's broader constitutional examination, and refers it to the nine-judge bench.
Apr 7, 2026
Nine-judge bench begins Sabarimala Reference hearings
CJI Surya Kant leads the largest bench in this case's history. The Dawoodi Bohra excommunication case is formally tagged to be heard alongside the Sabarimala reference.
May 6, 2026 ★
Bench questions procedural validity of excommunication writ
Having criticised the Sabarimala PIL on Day 8, the bench applies consistent scrutiny to the Dawoodi Bohra writ. Justice Nagarathna's observation — that the Court must be consistent — signals a potentially significant shift in how these petitions will be treated.
Key Constitutional Provisions Explained
Quick Reference Guide
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Supreme Court question the Dawoodi Bohra excommunication petition on procedural grounds?
The reformist Dawoodi Bohra members filed their challenge as an Article 32 writ petition — but they were effectively seeking the overruling of the Supreme Court's 1962 ruling in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay. A writ petition is not the appropriate mechanism for challenging a Supreme Court judgment; a review petition or curative petition would be the proper remedy. Having just raised the same procedural concern about the Sabarimala PIL, the bench — particularly Justice Nagarathna — insisted on applying the same standard consistently.
What exactly is excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community, and why is it constitutionally controversial?
In the Dawoodi Bohra community, the Dai al-Mutlaq (the community's supreme leader) has the power to excommunicate — formally exclude — members who challenge his authority or violate community norms. An excommunicated person loses access to community mosques, burial grounds, and all communal ceremonies. The constitutional controversy arises because this practice sits at the intersection of Article 26(b) — the denomination's right to manage its own religious affairs — and Article 25(1), which guarantees individuals the right to freely profess and practise their religion. When a denomination exercises its collective rights in a way that effectively extinguishes an individual member's religious freedom, which right prevails?
How does the Dawoodi Bohra excommunication case relate to the Sabarimala Reference?
Both cases hinge on the same constitutional tension: the clash between a religious denomination's autonomy under Article 26 and individual fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 25. In 2023, a five-judge bench formally referred the Dawoodi Bohra excommunication case to the nine-judge Sabarimala reference bench, finding that resolving it required the same examination of essential religious practices and the scope of Articles 25 and 26 that the Sabarimala reference was already undertaking. The nine-judge bench is now hearing both together.
What did the 1962 Supreme Court ruling in Sardar Syedna decide?
The Supreme Court in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay (1962) struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949, as unconstitutional. The Court held that the Dawoodi Bohra denomination's power to excommunicate was protected under Article 26(b) — the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. The judgment characterised excommunication not as punishment but as a tool of internal discipline essential to preserving the denomination's structure and the religious authority of the Dai. Reformist petitioners now argue this ruling must be reconsidered in light of the Constitution's evolving understanding of individual rights.
What would happen if the Supreme Court holds the excommunication writ not maintainable?
If the bench concludes that an Article 32 writ petition cannot be used to challenge a Supreme Court judgment, the reformist petitioners would likely be directed to file a curative petition — an extraordinary remedy available after a review petition is dismissed. The curative route has a very high threshold and is heard by a limited panel of the Court's senior-most judges. Practically, this could mean further years of delay for a dispute already pending since 1986. The substantive constitutional question of whether excommunication violates fundamental rights would remain unanswered in these proceedings.
Is this a judgment or just the bench asking questions?
As of May 6, 2026, no ruling has been delivered on the Dawoodi Bohra excommunication matter. The bench's observations — including Justice Nagarathna's consistency argument — are questions and preliminary signals, not final orders. The Court explicitly clarified it was raising concerns about procedural practice, not the merits of the excommunication challenge. Arguments before the nine-judge bench are ongoing; a final ruling on all referred questions is expected once hearings conclude.
What Comes Next
The May 6 developments add a new dimension to an already complex set of proceedings. The nine-judge bench must now navigate three tracks simultaneously: the Sabarimala temple-entry questions, the substantive constitutional validity of Dawoodi Bohra excommunication, and the threshold procedural question of whether either petition should have been entertained in its current form at all.
The bench's willingness to raise hard procedural questions — even about cases it has been formally asked to decide — signals a Court that is thinking carefully about judicial overreach as much as religious freedom. In a country where public interest litigation has expanded enormously, the nine-judge bench's consistency argument could prove as significant as its ultimate ruling on Articles 25 and 26.
For citizens whose lives have been altered by excommunication, and for communities whose internal religious practices face judicial challenge, the wait for clarity continues. But for the first time in sixty years, the Supreme Court of India is genuinely examining whether a ruling it delivered in 1962 — in a very different constitutional moment — still holds.
Follow our Sabarimala Reference 2026 coverage hub for hearing-by-hearing updates and expert analysis as the case moves toward its historic conclusion.
Tags
