All views welcome except from WhatsApp university: SC in religious discrimination case
The Supreme Court of India has refused to accept information from 'WhatsApp University' as evidence in a significant case addressing religious freedom and discrimination against women at religious sites like the Sabarimala Temple.
IMAGE: The Supreme Court of India. Image used for representational purpose only. Photograph: Rahul Singh/ANI Photo Key Points The Supreme Court rejected information from 'WhatsApp University' during a hearing on religious freedom. The case involves petitions related to discrimination against women at religious places, including the Sabarimala Temple. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul cited an article by Shashi Tharoor, prompting the court's response. The court emphasised that personal opinions, even from eminent persons, are still personal opinions. The Supreme Court previously stated the difficulty in defining essential and non-essential religious practices.
The Supreme Court on Thursday said it respects the views of all eminent authors and thinkers, but it cannot accept information from 'WhatsApp University'.
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.
Supreme Court Bench Composition
The bench was composed of 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, appearing for the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, referred to an article written by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, which talked about judicial restraint in matters of religious relief.
At this juncture, CJI Kant said, "We respect all eminent persons, jurists, etc, but personal opinion is personal opinion."
Arguments Presented Before the Court
Kaul said there was no harm in drawing from all sources.
"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.
Justice Nagarathna, in a lighter vein, said, "But not from WhatsApp University."
Kaul said he was not getting into that.
"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," Kaul said.
The hearing was underway at the time of filing of this report.
Background: Sabarimala Temple Case
The top court on Wednesday said it was very difficult, if not impossible, for a judicial forum to define parameters to declare a particular practice of a religious denomination as essential and non-essential.
A five-judge Constitution bench, by a 4:1 majority verdict in September 2018, lifted a ban that prevented women between the ages of 10 and 50 years from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple and held that the centuries-old Hindu religious practice was illegal and unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is hearing a batch of petitions challenging religious practices that allegedly discriminate against women. The Sabarimala Temple case, which previously struck down a ban on women of menstruating age entering the temple, is a key precedent in these proceedings. The current nine-judge bench is tasked with determining the scope of judicial review in matters of religious freedom.
Key Insights
- This topic is currently trending
- Experts are closely monitoring developments
- It may impact future decisions
