Supreme Court Bench Questions 'WhatsApp University' in Sabarimala Temple Gender Discrimination Hearing
Nine-judge Constitution bench led by CJ Surya Kant hears petitions on religious freedom across faiths; refers to Shashi Tharoor's article on judicial restraint
L'essentiel
- The Supreme Court's nine-judge Constitution bench hearing the Sabarimala temple gender discrimination case said it cannot rely on information from 'WhatsApp University,' responding to senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul who cited Shashi Tharoor's article on judicial restraint.
- Justice BV Nagarathna made the remark during arguments on the scope of religious freedom across faiths.
- The bench is revisiting a 2018 ruling that lifted the ban on women aged 10-50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple.
Résumé généré par IA
Pourquoi c'est important
The Sabarimala case has been contentious since 2018 when the Supreme Court first ruled that the ban on women of menstrual age entering the temple was unconstitutional. The ruling sparked protests and legal challenges, with devotees and Hindu organizations opposing the decision. The current nine-judge bench is examining broader questions of religious freedom across faiths.
NEW DELHI: Hearing a case on gender discrimination in temples like Sabarimala, the Supreme Court on Thursday said it respects the views of eminent authors and thinkers, but cannot rely on information from 'WhatsApp University.' The remark came from a nine-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant hearing petitions on the scope of religious freedom across faiths. The bench included Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi. During the hearing, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, referred to an article by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor on judicial restraint in matters of religious relief. Responding, Chief Justice Kant said the court respects eminent individuals and jurists, but personal opinions remain just that. Kaul argued that knowledge should be welcomed from all sources. "If wisdom comes from any source, any country or university, it should be accepted. We are far too rich as a civilisation to reject knowledge," he said. Justice Nagarathna, in a lighter moment, interjected: "But not from WhatsApp University." Kaul replied that he was not concerned with judging sources, reiterating that the key point was to accept knowledge wherever it comes from. A day earlier, the top court observed that it is extremely difficult—if not impossible—for courts to define what constitutes an essential religious practice. In a 4–1 ruling in September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench had lifted the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, declaring the practice unconstitutional.
À surveiller
Perspective IA — des possibilités, pas des certitudes
The Constitution bench will deliver a comprehensive ruling on the definition of essential religious practices
Très probable · En quelques mois
The ruling may clarify the balance between religious freedom and constitutional rights
Probable · En quelques mois
Questions ouvertes
- Will the bench uphold or overturn the 2018 ruling?
- How will the court define 'essential religious practices'?
- Will this ruling affect other religious institutions with gender restrictions?
