The Supreme Court on May 6, 2026 questioned the maintainability of Public Interest Litigations challenging the Dawoodi Bohra community's practice of excommunication, noting that a 1962 Constitution Bench judgment had upheld the practice under Article 26(b) of the Constitution. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, part of a nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, asked senior advocate Raju Ramachandran whether PILs under Article 32 could be used to overturn a long-standing constitutional verdict, emphasizing that the court must adhere to judicial discipline.

The petitions seek to invalidate the 1962 ruling in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin vs The State of Bombay, which recognized excommunication as part of religious management. The issue was referred to a nine-judge bench in 2023 amid arguments that the practice violates human dignity and contravenes the Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott Act, 2016, which criminalizes excommunication. Senior advocate Darius Khambata, representing a Parsi Zoroastrian woman, argued that denominational rights under Article 26(b) exist to protect groups from state interference, not to suppress individual believers' rights.

Ramachandran asserted that the petitions were carefully drafted and distinguished them from recent cases, such as those challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, where notices were issued despite constitutional sensitivities. He urged the court to examine the proportionality of excommunication and its impact on fundamental rights. The bench, however, stressed the need to first resolve whether PILs are an appropriate mechanism to revisit Constitution Bench decisions.

The hearing continues as the nine-judge bench deliberates on both the legal maintainability of the petitions and the broader constitutional conflict between religious autonomy and individual rights. The court is expected to determine the procedural path forward before addressing the substantive question of whether excommunication violates fundamental rights.