Can't Take Information From 'WhatsApp University': Justice Nagarathna

The eighth day of the Sabarimala reference hearing witnessed a light-hearted comment by Justice BV Nagarathna that information cannot be accepted from 'WhatsApp University'.

Justice Nagarathna made this comment in response to a submission made by Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul that there was no harm in accepting knowledge and wisdom regardless of the source. Kaul was citing an article written by Dr. Sashi Tharoor in a newspaper, calling for judicial restraint in matters of religious relief.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, saying that while the Court respected all eminent authors and thinkers, said that the article, after all, was a personal opinion, and "personal opinion is personal opinion", hinting that it cannot have any binding value on the Court.

"There is no harm in drawing from all sources. If knowledge and wisdom come from any source, any country, any university, they should be welcomed. We are far too rich as a civilisation not to accept all forms of knowledge and information," Kaul replied.

"But not from WhatsApp University," Justice Nagarathna said.

"I am 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 replied.

Kaul is appearing for the Dawoodi Bohra community head in a writ petition challenging the practice of excommunication.

Kaul argued that the rights of a denomination under Article 26(b) cannot be read as subject to the social reform legislations adopted by the State in pursuance of Article 25(2)(b) in all contexts. He submitted that the Devaru judgment does not lay down a blanket rule that Article 26(d) be subject to Article 25(2)(b) in all contexts, as the case was in the context of temple entry alone.

He advocated a harmonious construction of Articles 26(b) and 25(2)(b). Justice Nagarathna at this point commented, "When a legislation is enacted under Article 25(2)(b), it cannot be said that the right of a religious denomination will always prevail. Those rights are themselves subject to public order, morality and health. That can form the basis of social reform or social welfare legislation." Kaul agreed.

Kaul further argued that the word 'morality' in Articles 25 and 26 cannot be understood as 'constitutional morality'. Abhorrent practices will, in any case, be hit by 'public morality', and there was no need to import the concept of 'constitutional morality'.

"If constitutional morality is read into morality then we are bringining it lot more than what has been envisaged," Kaul warned.

This was in response to a query by Justice Amanullah about why constitutional morality cannot be used in Articles 25/26, since it was an evolving and dynamic concept, as opposed to social morality, which might be static.

The hearing is progressing. Live updates can be followed here.