Today, On 23rd April, The Supreme Court said it respects the views of all distinguished authors and thinkers but cannot rely on information from “WhatsApp University.” The nine-judge Constitution bench made this remark while hearing petitions on discrimination against women and religious freedom issues.
The Supreme Court, said it respects the views of all distinguished authors and thinkers, but it cannot rely on information from WhatsApp University.
The observation was made by a nine-judge Constitution bench while hearing petitions concerning discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple in Keralam, and issues related to the scope of religious freedom practised by multiple faiths.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, is currently hearing the long-pending Sabarimala reference case.
Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, referred to an article by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, which discussed the principle of judicial restraint in matters involving religious relief.
At this point, CJI Kant said,
“We respect all eminent persons, jurists, etc., but personal opinion is personal opinion.”
Kaul argued that there was no harm in drawing from all sources.
He said,
“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,”
Justice Nagarathna then added,
“But not from WhatsApp University.”
Kaul clarified that he was not trying to get into the quality of any particular university. He stated that this aspect was irrelevant to the debate and emphasized that information should be accepted wherever it comes from.
He said,
“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,”
The hearing was ongoing at the time the report was filed. Earlier, on Wednesday, the top court had said it is extremely difficult if not impossible for a judicial forum to set parameters to determine whether a particular practice of a religious denomination is essential or non-essential.
In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench, in a 4:1 majority decision, lifted a ban that had restricted women aged between 10 and 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, holding that the long-standing Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.
This case is linked to the landmark 2018 judgment where the Court allowed entry of women of all age groups into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, ending the earlier restriction on women of menstruating age.
Later, in 2019, while hearing review petitions, the Court did not give a final verdict but instead referred larger constitutional questions to a bigger bench. These questions mainly deal with the balance between religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 and the right to equality under Article 14.
Click Here to Read More On Women’s Entry & Religious