Summary of this article
Supreme Court says personal opinions, including those from public intellectuals, cannot guide constitutional decisions; rejects reliance on “WhatsApp University” inputs.
Hearing focuses on gender discrimination in religious practices and the challenge of defining “essential religious practices.”
Case linked to the 2018 Sabarimala verdict that allowed entry of women of menstruating age into the temple.
The Supreme Court on Thursday remarked that while it values the perspectives of distinguished authors and thinkers, it cannot rely on unverified or informal sources, often dubbed as ‘WhatsApp University’. The observation came from a nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant while hearing a batch of petitions concerning women’s entry into religious places, including the Sabarimala temple, and the broader scope of religious freedom across faiths.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the Dawoodi Bohra community, cited an article by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor advocating judicial restraint in matters of religion. Responding to this, the bench clarified that individual opinions, regardless of their source, cannot substitute constitutional reasoning. Justice B V Nagarathna, in a lighter moment, remarked that such inputs should not come from “WhatsApp University”. PTI reported.
The court also reiterated its earlier concern that it is extremely difficult for judicial bodies to define what constitutes essential religious practices. The hearing remained ongoing.
The matter traces back to the 2018 verdict by a five-judge Constitution bench, which, by a 4:1 majority, struck down the ban on entry of women aged 10 to 50 at the Sabarimala temple, terming the practice unconstitutional.
(With inputs from PTI)
