Supreme Court Constitution Bench Deliberates on Religious Practices – Implications for Article 25 & 26

The Supreme Court on 7 May 2026 heard arguments before a nine‑judge Constitution Bench on the limits of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Key Developments Petitions challenging gender discrimination at the Sabarimala temple were heard alongside a petition by the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community seeking reversal of a 1962 judgment on excommunication. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna , M M Sundresh , Ahsanuddin Amanullah , Aravind Kumar , Augustine George Masih , Prasanna B Varale , R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi formed the bench. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran argued that a practice linked to secular misconduct cannot claim protection under Article 25 and therefore is not a “matter of religion” under Article 26 . Justices Nagarathna and Sundresh cautioned that excessive questioning of religious practices could “break” religions and destabilise the civilised fabric of India. Important Facts The 1986 PIL by the Dawoodi Bohra community sought to set aside the 1962 judgment that struck down the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949. The 1962 decision held that excommunication by the community’s religious head formed part of its internal management and that the 1949 Act infringed on the community’s rights under Article 26(b) . Advocate Ramachandran contended that excommunication, though religious in origin, has a “secular and social” dimension that can impinge on fundamental rights, and therefore should not be insulated from constitutional scrutiny. UPSC Relevance Understanding the balance between religious freedom and other constitutional values such as gender equality and public order. Insights into how the judiciary interprets Articles 25 and 26 in contemporary disputes. Illustrates the role of a Constitution Bench in shaping jurisprudence on pluralism and secularism. Highlights the interplay between personal laws of minority communities (e.g., Dawoodi Bohra) and the overarching constitutional framework. Way Forward The Court is likely to delineate the scope of “matter of religion” and may set a test‑case for future challenges to internal religious practices. Aspirants should monitor the judgment for its articulation of the “public order” exception under Article 25 and the “management of affairs” clause under Article 26, as these will inform policy debates on religious reform, gender rights, and minority autonomy.