Supreme Court CJI Surya Kant Critiques 1962 Excommunication Verdict in Sabarimala Hearing

The Supreme Court on Thursday, during the Sabarimala reference , orally observed that the 1962 judgment in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb vs State of Bombay was erroneous for completely annulling the law. Key Developments The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , suggested that the majority should have employed the doctrine of severability or the method of reading down to limit excommunication to purely religious breaches. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, argued that excommunication is being used to punish members for secular activities such as forming cooperatives, marrying, or reading magazines. Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, for the Dawoodi Bohra community , contended that the 1962 decision correctly struck down the 1949 Act because it banned excommunication without distinguishing religious from social grounds. The Court also heard arguments on the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) within the community, linking it to the fear of excommunication. Important Facts The Article 26(b) was invoked by the 1962 majority to protect the right of a religious denomination to enforce discipline. Chief Justice BP Sinha had dissented in 1962, viewing the 1949 law as a social‑reform measure under Article 25(2)(b) . The bench hearing the matter comprises nine judges, including Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi. UPSC Relevance Understanding the tension between excommunication and constitutional guarantees is vital for GS‑2 (Polity). The case illustrates how the judiciary balances Article 25 and Article 26 against social‑reform objectives. It also showcases judicial tools such as “reading down” and “severability” that are frequently asked in constitutional law essays. Way Forward If the bench adopts the “reading down” approach, the 1949 Act may be partially saved, allowing excommunication only on strictly religious grounds. A clear judicial standard on the proportionality of disciplinary measures could guide future disputes involving personal laws and reformist legislation. Parliament may consider amending the Act to expressly differentiate between religious discipline and secular sanctions, thereby reducing litigation.