A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is currently reviewing the parameters of religious practice and the legality of discriminatory traditions within various faiths.

最高法院一個由九名法官組成的憲法法庭，目前正在審查宗教實踐的參數，以及各種信仰中歧視傳統的合法性。

The current judicial proceedings originate from review petitions concerning a 2018 ruling, wherein a five-judge bench determined by a 4:1 majority that the prohibition of women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala temple was unconstitutional. The scope of this inquiry was subsequently expanded in November 2019 to encompass seven distinct issues regarding discriminatory practices across multiple religions, including the Dawoodi Bohra community.

目前的司法程序源於對 2018 年一項裁決的覆核申請，當時一個五人法官小組以 4:1 的多數票決定，禁止 10 至 50 歲女性進入 Sabarimala 廟是不合憲的。此項調查的範圍隨後在 2019 年 11 月擴大，涵蓋了關於多個宗教（包括 Dawoodi Bohra 社群）歧視行為的七個不同議題。

During the fifteenth day of hearings, the Bench addressed the conceptualization of Hinduism. In response to submissions by counsel G. Mohan Gopal—who questioned the universality of the 1966 legal interpretation that defines a Hindu as one who accepts the Vedas as the supreme authority—Justice BV Nagarathna characterized Hinduism as a 'way of life.' The Court posited that adherence to specific rituals or temple attendance is not a mandatory requirement for maintaining one's religious identity. Chief Justice Surya Kant further noted that minimal acts of faith, such as the lighting of a lamp within a residence, suffice as evidence of religious belief.

在第十五天的聆訊中，法庭討論了對印度教的概念化。針對法律顧問 G. Mohan Gopal 質疑 1966 年將印度教徒定義為「接受吠陀經為最高權威者」之法律解釋的普適性，法官 BV Nagarathna 將印度教描述為一種「生活方式」。法院認為，遵守特定儀式或前往寺廟並非維持宗教身份的強制要求。首席大法官 Surya Kant 進一步指出，簡單的信仰行為，例如在住所內點燈，即可作為宗教信仰的證據。

Notwithstanding this flexibility in individual practice, the Court expressed institutional concern regarding the potential for systemic instability. The Bench previously observed that the judicial adjudication of every religious ritual could precipitate a proliferation of litigation, potentially destabilizing the foundational structures of religious civilizations. Justice Nagarathna emphasized the necessity of maintaining the continuity of Indian civilization while navigating the tension between internal denominational reform and state-mandated judicial intervention.

儘管個人實踐具有靈活性，但法院對系統性不穩定的可能性表示制度上的擔憂。法庭先前觀察到，若每項宗教儀式都經過司法裁決，可能會導致訴訟激增，進而破壞宗教文明的基礎結構。法官 Nagarathna 強調，在處理教派內部改革與國家強制司法干預之間的緊張關係時，維持印度文明的連續性至關重要。

The Supreme Court continues to deliberate on the intersection of constitutional mandates and religious autonomy across diverse faith traditions.

最高法院將繼續審議在不同信仰傳統中，憲法指令與宗教自主權之間的交集。