Respect all views except WhatsApp University: SC in Sabarimala case
- Mahesh S
- Apr 25
- 2 min read

New Delhi, April 23: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday said it respects views of eminent authors and thinkers but cannot rely on information sourced from “WhatsApp University”, while hearing petitions on religious practices and gender discrimination.
A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant made the observation during proceedings on issues including women’s entry to the Sabarimala Temple and the scope of religious freedom across faiths. The bench also comprised 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, cited an article by Shashi Tharoor on judicial restraint in matters of religious relief.
At this point, the Chief Justice said, “We respect all eminent persons, jurists, etc., but personal opinion is personal opinion.”
Kaul said courts could draw from diverse sources of knowledge. “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,” he said.
Justice Nagarathna responded, “But not from WhatsApp University.”
Kaul replied he was not addressing that aspect. “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,” he said.
The hearing was continuing at the time of filing.
On Wednesday, the court had observed that it was difficult, if not impossible, for a judicial forum to lay down parameters to determine whether a religious practice is essential or non-essential.
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority, set aside the ban on entry of women aged 10 to 50 years into the Sabarimala temple, holding the practice unconstitutional.



Comments