Respect all views except Whatsapp University: SC in Sabarimala case

The Supreme Court of India, while hearing religious freedom cases including Sabarimala, remarked it respects expert opinions but rejects “WhatsApp University” sources. The bench discussed limits of judicial assessment of religious practices and gender-based entry restrictions at temples

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it respects the views of all eminent authors and thinkers, but it cannot accept information from ‘WhatsApp University’.

The observation by a nine-judge Constitution bench came while hearing petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, and on the ambit and scope of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.

---

The bench was composed of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi.

Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, referred to an article written by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, which talked about judicial restraint in matters of religious relief.

At this juncture, CJI Kant said, “We respect all eminent persons, jurists, etc., but personal opinion is personal opinion.” Kaul said there was no harm in drawing from all sources.

“If knowledge and wisdom come from any source, any country, any university, it should be welcomed. We are far too rich as a civilisation not to accept all forms of knowledge and information,” Kaul said.

Justice Nagarathna, in a lighter vein, said, “But not from WhatsApp University.” Kaul said he was not getting into that.

“I am not into which university is good or bad, which is really inconsequential to this debate….. The point is simply that wherever knowledge and information come from, they must be accepted,” Kaul said.

The hearing was underway at the time of filing of this report.

The top court on Wednesday said it was very difficult, if not impossible, for a judicial forum to define parameters to declare a particular practice of a religious denomination as essential and non-essential.

A five-judge Constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority verdict in September 2018, lifted a ban that prevented women between the ages of 10 and 50 years from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.