Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin v. State of Bombay, 1962 AIR 853

CASE_TITLE: Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin v. State of Bombay, 1962 AIR 853

Slug: sardar-syedna-taher-saifuddin-v-state-of-bombay-1962-air-853

PUBLISH_DATE: 24 Oct 2025 • AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi • LOCATION: India

This case tested a law that banned excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community. The Supreme Court held that such a ban violated Articles 25–26 which protect freedom of religion and a denomination’s right to manage its religious affairs.

• Was the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act, 1949 within the legislative competence of Bombay?
• After the Constitution came into force, was the Act invalid because of Articles 25 and 26?

• Article 25: Freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion (subject to public order, morality, health).
• Article 26: Rights of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, establish and maintain institutions, own property, and administer it.

• Act struck down: The statute banning excommunication was held unconstitutional as it violated Articles 25–26.
• Denomination autonomy: Managing religious affairs—including excommunication—falls within Article 26(b).
• Civil consequences: Loss of certain civil benefits to an excommunicated member can be a necessary consequence and does not by itself defeat the right.

1. Scope of Art. 26(b): Excommunication is a religious affair of the denomination; State cannot prohibit it outright.
2. Civil fallout: Adverse civil effects do not invalidate the religious right.
3. Rights v. Regulation: Regulation of secular aspects is allowed, but a total ban on a religious practice is impermissible.

The ruling draws a line between religious autonomy and State control. It protects a denomination’s core decisions while reminding that civil law cannot erase constitutional religious rights.

• Act banning excommunication—unconstitutional.
• Articles 25–26 protect denomination control over religious affairs.
• Civil consequences alone do not nullify a religious right.

Mnemonic: “D-E-N-O” — Denomination control, Excommunication allowed, No total ban, Outcome: Act void.

1. Identify: Is it a religious affair under Art. 26(b)?
2. Check: Does the law impose a total ban or regulate secular effects?
3. Conclude: Total ban fails where core religious management is hit.

Issue

Competence of Bombay to ban excommunication and whether such a ban violates Articles 25–26.

Rule

Articles 25–26 secure freedom of religion and denomination control in religious matters; the State may regulate only within constitutional limits.

Application

The Act imposed a blanket prohibition on a religious practice. This directly hit the denomination’s religious affairs and could not be justified by civil effects alone.

Conclusion

The Act was struck down; excommunication as a religious affair remains within denomination autonomy under Article 26(b).

Excommunication

Religious removal of a member from community spiritual life and privileges.

Denomination

A religious group with its own faith, organization, and identity.

Article 26(b)

Right of a denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion.