The Supreme Court is questioning the maintainability of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) concerning the excommunication practices within the Dawoodi Bohra community, drawing parallels to its previous handling of the Sabarimala temple case.
The core issue revolves around challenges to the religious practice of *baraat*, a form of excommunication, within the Dawoodi Bohra community. Petitioners argue this practice violates fundamental rights, specifically freedom of religion.
During the hearing, the court raised concerns about whether the PILs were genuinely public interest litigations or disguised attempts to address private grievances. Justices emphasized the need to avoid interfering in essential religious practices unless they demonstrably violate fundamental rights or are repugnant to constitutional principles.
The court referenced its 2018 Sabarimala judgment, where it had addressed the essentiality of a religious practice. It suggested a similar rigorous examination of the *baraat* practice is required, focusing on whether it is an integral part of the Dawoodi Bohra faith.
Specifically, the court questioned if the petitioners had established themselves as aggrieved parties directly impacted by the practice, or if they were merely raising concerns on behalf of the community. It also asked whether the practice of *baraat* is universally followed by all Dawoodi Bohra sects or if it’s a specific practice within a particular sub-group.
The Dawoodi Bohra community, through its legal representation, argued that *baraat* is a religious practice protected under the Constitution and doesn’t violate any fundamental rights. They maintained it’s a disciplinary measure within the community and not a denial of religious freedom.
The court has requested the petitioners to clarify the scope of their challenge and demonstrate a direct, tangible injury caused by the *baraat* practice. It also directed them to address the question of whether the practice is essential to the Dawoodi Bohra religion. Further hearings are expected as the court determines if the PILs are maintainable and warrants further consideration. The outcome could set a precedent for future challenges to religious practices within minority communities.
