Supreme Court's Stance on Religious Practices: A Nod to Knowledge Beyond WhatsApp University

The Supreme Court recently highlighted its stance on the importance of credible knowledge sources while addressing petitions related to gender discrimination in religious practices. During the proceedings, the court humorously dismissed reliance on informal platforms like 'WhatsApp University'. The discussions revolved around the Sabarimala Temple case and the broader implications of religious freedom. This article delves into the court's observations and the ongoing debate about the intersection of law and religion, inviting readers to explore the complexities of these issues further.

By Narendra Chaudhary Apr 23, 2026, 13:12 IST

Supreme Court Addresses Religious Discrimination

New Delhi: On Thursday, the Supreme Court emphasized its respect for the opinions of distinguished authors and intellectuals, but firmly stated that it cannot rely on information sourced from 'WhatsApp University'.

This remark was made by a nine-judge Constitution bench while deliberating on petitions concerning gender discrimination in religious sites, including the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala, and the extent of religious freedom across various faiths.

The bench included 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.

During the proceedings, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the Dawoodi Bohra community leader, referenced an article by Congress member Shashi Tharoor discussing the concept of judicial restraint in religious matters.

In response, CJI Kant remarked, 'We respect all eminent individuals, jurists, etc., but personal opinions remain personal opinions.'

Kaul argued that drawing knowledge from diverse sources is beneficial.

'If wisdom and knowledge can be derived from any source, country, or university, it should be embraced. Our civilization is too rich to dismiss any form of knowledge and information,' Kaul stated.

Justice Nagarathna humorously added, 'But not from WhatsApp University.'

Kaul chose not to engage further on that point.

'I am not concerned with which university is superior or inferior, as that is irrelevant to this discussion... The key point is that knowledge and information from any source should be acknowledged,' Kaul emphasized.

The hearing was ongoing at the time of this report.

The Supreme Court had previously noted that it is challenging, if not impossible, for a judicial body to set parameters to classify a specific religious practice as essential or non-essential.

In a landmark decision in September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench ruled 4:1 to lift the ban on women aged 10 to 50 from entering the Sabarimala Ayyappa temple, declaring the long-standing Hindu practice unconstitutional.