The Supreme Court of India on Thursday issued a firm reminder that judicial proceedings must rely on rigorous legal standards rather than informal social media narratives, quipping that it cannot accept information from “WhatsApp University.”
The observation was made by a nine-judge Constitution bench during high-stakes hearings concerning gender discrimination at religious sites, including the Sabarimala Temple, and the overall scope of religious freedom under the Indian Constitution.
The exchange began when senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, cited an article by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor regarding judicial restraint in religious matters.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant responded by distinguishing between formal jurisprudence and individual viewpoints. “We respect all eminent persons, jurists, etc., but personal opinion is personal opinion,” the CJI noted.
While Kaul argued that a civilization as rich as India’s should be open to wisdom from any source or country, the bench maintained a boundary between academic or juristic contribution and unverified information. Justice B V Nagarathna intervened in a lighter vein, adding, “But not from WhatsApp University,” a popular colloquialism for unverified or fake news circulated on messaging platforms.
Kaul clarified that he was not debating the merits of specific “universities” but argued that valuable information should be accepted regardless of its origin.
The nine-judge bench is currently grappling with the complex task of defining the “essential religious practices” of various faiths. On Wednesday, the court acknowledged the extreme difficulty of establishing universal parameters to determine which practices are central to a religion and which are not.
The current proceedings follow the landmark 2018 verdict where a five-judge bench, in a 4:1 majority, struck down the ban on women aged 10 to 50 entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, declaring the practice illegal and unconstitutional.
The hearing remains ongoing as the bench continues to examine the intersection of constitutional rights and religious traditions.
