Supreme Court: Respect Eminent Persons, Jurists, Not WhatsApp University

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said it values the perspectives of eminent persons and jurists but cautioned that information circulating through "WhatsApp university" cannot be treated as credible or accepted.

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 comprises 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, representing the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, referred to an article written by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor. The bench was informed that the Congress leader's article discussed judicial restraint in matters of religious relief.

CJI Kant said, "We respect all eminent persons, jurists, etc., but personal opinion is personal opinion." Kaul 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," Kaul said. In a lighter vein, Justice Nagarathna said, "But not from WhatsApp University." Kaul said he was not getting into that.

Kaul said he is not into which university is good or bad, which is really inconsequential to this debate. He stressed that the point is simply that wherever knowledge and information come from, they must be accepted.

While hearing the matter on April 22, the apex court urged unity within Hindu society, cautioning against divisive attitudes such as "they cannot come to our temple and we cannot go to their temple." The apex court stressed that it is extremely difficult—if not impossible—for a judicial forum to define the parameters that distinguish essential from non-essential practices of a religious denomination, while hearing Sabarimala review petitions.

Read More

1. SC: Hindu Society Must Unite; Courts Can't Define Parameters Of Essential Religious Practices
2. 'Whether Constitution Protects Believer Barred From Touching Deity': Asks SC In Sabarimala Hearing