A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India is currently examining the permissible scope of judicial intervention regarding religious practices and the constitutional protections afforded to various faith communities.

印度最高法院一個由九名法官組成的憲法法庭，目前正在審查司法干預宗教習俗的許可範圍，以及憲法對各個信仰社群所提供的保護。

The judicial proceedings are centered upon the tension between individual fundamental rights and the collective religious freedoms guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. A primary point of contention involves the Dawoodi Bohra community; specifically, the court is reviewing the validity of a 1962 precedent that invalidated the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act of 1949. While the 1962 ruling asserted that excommunication was an internal matter of religious management, legal counsel for reformist members of the community argues that practices impacting secular social actions or fundamental rights should not be immune to constitutional restriction.

司法程序集中於個人基本權利與憲法第 25 條及第 26 條所保障的集體宗教自由之間的緊張關係。一個主要的爭議點涉及 Dawoodi Bohra 社群；具體而言，法院正在審查 1962 年一項廢除 1949 年《孟買防止除名法》之判例的有效性。雖然 1962 年的裁決主張除名屬於宗教管理的內部事務，但該社群內改革派成員的法律顧問認為，影響世俗社會行為或基本權利的做法不應免於憲法限制。

Furthermore, the Bench addressed the practice of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) within the Dawoodi Bohra community. Justice Bagchi indicated that such practices might be restricted under Article 25 on the basis of public health, irrespective of their religious character. This discourse occurs within the broader context of a review of the 2018 verdict concerning gender-based entry restrictions at the Sabarimala temple.

此外，法庭處理了 Dawoodi Bohra 社群內女性生殖器切割 (FGM) 的做法。Bagchi 法官指出，無論其宗教性質如何，此類做法可能根據第 25 條基於公共衛生理由而受到限制。此論述是在審查 2018 年關於 Sabarimala 寺廟基於性別之進入限制裁決的更廣泛背景下進行的。

Institutional concerns were articulated by Justice Nagarathna and Justice Sundresh, who posited that an expansive judicial approach to questioning religious rituals could precipitate the fragmentation of religious structures and the destabilization of Indian civilization. They characterized the relationship between the citizenry and religion as a societal constant. Conversely, the petitioners maintain that the court's primary function is to ensure that no practice contrary to constitutional principles persists within a civilized society.

Nagarathna 法官與 Sundresh 法官表達了對體制的憂慮，他們認為採取過於擴張的司法方式質疑宗教儀式，可能會導致宗教結構的碎片化以及印度文明的不穩定。他們將公民與宗教之間的關係描述為一種社會常數。相反地，請願人堅持認為，法院的主要功能是確保在文明社會中，不存在任何與憲法原則相悖的做法。

The Court remains engaged in determining the precise threshold at which the state may intervene in religious denominations to protect fundamental rights without undermining societal stability.

法院仍致力於確定精確的門檻，使國家能在不損害社會穩定的情况下，干預宗教教派以保護基本權利。