The 5 judge Constitution constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 11, 2022, after hearing the submission of both the parties concerning the case of challenging the validity of the excommunication among the Dawoodi Bohra community, reserved its order on whether to refer the instant case to the larger 9-judges bench in view of the Sabrimala review case, which is considering the substantial question relating to essential religious practices.

As per the practice, the top leader of this branch of Shia Islam Community has the authority to excommunicate or remove obstinate members, thereby denying them access to the mosque, the local cemetery, and other services.

The petition is relating to the constitutional validity of the practice of excommunication among the Dawoodi Bohra Community has been pending before the court since 1986. In the other case, Sardar Syedna Saifuddin v. the State of Bombay [1962 Suppl (2) SCR 496], the practise was held constitutional, and as per the enacted law, the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949, it was struck down as a violation of Article 26(b)  fundamental right of the religious freedom.

Further, against the decision, the Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act was enacted in 2016 while the present petition was pending, which describes social boycotts as inhuman, putting up the question of whether this has led to the debate over whether excommunication can still be considered a "protected practise"; despite the Maharashtra Legislature & ban on social boycotts.

The Solicitor-General, Tushar Mehta, presented before the 5 judges bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, A.S. Oka, Vikram Nath, and J.K. Maheshwari, that the question would be appropriately answered before the larger bench due to its generic nature.

Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman and Darius Khambata argued that the petition came into light because the 2016 Act had already repealed the contested practise on behalf of the Da'i-al-Mutlaq, the office of the Dawoodi Bohra's supreme leader. The senior advocate said it would be wise to
wait for the Constitution Bench's ruling in the Sabarimala case. While Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar contested the following argument and requested the court to decide the case without forwarding it to the nine-judge bench.

Case Details:-

Writ Petition (C) No. 740/1986

Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community And Anr.

Vs. State of Maharashtra Anr.