New Delhi, May 8 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed unease over the expanding reach of judicial review into questions of faith, wondering whether frequent or indiscriminate intervention by constitutional courts into religious practices could destabilise religion itself -- "a constant" in a civilisation like India where, it said, faith remains deeply intertwined with social life. "This is troubling us. We, nine judges, what we lay down is for a civilisation, that is India. India must progress. Despite all its development, economy, everything, there is a constant in us -- we can't break that constant," observed the bench while hearing a batch of matters arising from the Sabarimala review proceedings and connected questions on the scope of religious freedom. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and also comprising justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, AG Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing submissions on the interplay between religious freedom, denominational autonomy and fundamental rights. Justice Nagarathna cautioned that if every religious practice were subjected to constitutional challenge, courts may find themselves drawn endlessly into theological disputes. "If everybody will start questioning certain religious practices or matters of religion before a constitutional court, then what happens to this civilisation where religion is so intimately connected with Indian society? There will be hundreds of petitions questioning this right, that right, opening of temple, closure of temple," she remarked. Justice Sundresh echoed the concern, saying: "If such cases are entertained, then everyone can question everything. Every religion will break, every constitutional court will have to be closed." The observations came during submissions by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran in relation to the practice of excommunication in the Dawoodi Bohra community. Appearing for reformist members of the community, Ramachandran argued that the court cannot remain a silent spectator where excommunication results in "civil death" and strips an individual of fundamental rights. He submitted that excommunication leads not merely to social ostracism but to denial of access to community spaces, burial grounds, employment and even marital relationships. "An individual's Article 25(1) right is effectively taken away," he argued. The bench, however, repeatedly tested the contours of such intervention. Justice Nagarathna posed a hypothetical situation where another section of the same denomination may approach the court seeking restoration of excommunication as an essential religious practice. "Now what should this court do in such a situation?" she asked. Justice Amanullah observed that once courts begin importing constitutional proportionality into internal religious matters, the autonomy guaranteed to denominations under Article 26 may itself stand diluted. Arguments in the matter will continue next week....