Key constitutional questions resurface in Sabarimala review
A light moment broke the intensity of proceedings in the Supreme Court of India on the eighth day of hearings in the Sabarimala review case, when Justice BV Nagarathna quipped that information cannot be accepted from “WhatsApp University”.
The remark drew laughter in the courtroom even as a nine-judge Constitution bench examined complex questions around religious freedom, women’s rights, and discrimination at places of worship, including the Sabarimala Temple.
Court weighs opinions, but not as binding
During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that while the court respects views expressed by public intellectuals, such opinions are not binding.
“Personal opinion is personal opinion,” he observed, responding to arguments referencing an article by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor advocating judicial restraint in religious matters.
Debate over sources of knowledge
Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued that knowledge and wisdom should be accepted regardless of the source, stressing India’s civilisational openness.
Justice Nagarathna, in response, made her now-viral remark: “But not from WhatsApp University,” underlining concerns over unverified information.
Key constitutional questions debated
The bench also examined the balance between religious freedom and social reform laws, particularly the interpretation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
Kaul argued for a “harmonious construction” of these provisions, cautioning against broadly applying “constitutional morality” in every case. However, the bench noted that religious rights remain subject to public order, morality, and health—principles that can justify reform.
Background: Sabarimala verdict
The hearing relates to the 2018 judgment in which a Constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority, allowed entry of women of all ages into the Sabarimala temple, striking down a long-standing restriction on women aged 10 to 50.
The ongoing review now raises broader questions on how courts define essential religious practices and the limits of judicial intervention.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
