New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday made a pointed observation on the credibility of information sources, stating that while it respects diverse viewpoints from scholars and public intellectuals, it cannot rely on what it termed as “WhatsApp University” inputs.
The remark came during an ongoing hearing before a nine-judge Constitution bench examining critical questions around religious freedom, gender rights, and practices at places of worship, including the contentious Sabarimala case.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices B V Nagarathna, M M Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, Prasanna B Varale, R Mahadevan, and Joymalya Bagchi, is tasked with addressing broader constitutional questions linked to religious autonomy and equality.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, cited an article by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor discussing judicial restraint in matters of religion. Responding to this, the Chief Justice clarified that personal opinions, even from eminent figures, remain subjective and cannot be treated as binding authority.
Kaul argued for openness in accepting knowledge from varied sources, asserting that wisdom should not be restricted by geography or institutional boundaries. He emphasized that India’s civilisational richness allows it to absorb ideas from across the world.
Adding a lighter note to the discussion, Justice Nagarathna remarked that such openness should not extend to unreliable or unverified platforms, humorously referring to “WhatsApp University.” The comment drew attention to the growing concern over misinformation influencing public discourse.
The hearing is part of a larger judicial exercise to define the limits of religious freedom under the Constitution, particularly when such practices intersect with fundamental rights like equality and non-discrimination.
Earlier, the apex court had acknowledged the complexity of determining what constitutes “essential religious practices,” noting that it is often difficult for courts to categorise traditions as essential or non-essential within a faith.
The issue traces back to the landmark 2018 verdict, where a five-judge Constitution bench, in a 4:1 majority, struck down the ban on entry of women aged 10 to 50 into the Sabarimala Temple. The ruling held that the practice was unconstitutional and violated principles of gender equality.
As deliberations continue, the court’s observations highlight a broader message while diverse perspectives are welcome, judicial decisions must rest on credible, verifiable, and constitutionally sound foundations rather than unverified claims circulating in informal digital spaces.