NEW DELHI: On Day 8 of the Sabarimala reference hearings held on Thursday, the nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court underlined that constitutional principles must prevail over external public commentary and opinions expressed outside the legal framework.
During the proceedings, advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, referred to a newspaper article written by Shashi Tharoor on the subject of judicial restraint. His submission led to a broader discussion among the bench about the reliability and appropriateness of the different sources of information cited in court.
Justice B V Nagarathna observed that while the court respects the opinions of eminent authors and intellectuals, it cannot rely on unverifiable or informal sources, such as what she described as “WhatsApp University”. She made it clear that although diverse viewpoints are welcome in public discourse, information derived from forwarded messages or informal channels cannot be treated as credible in judicial proceedings.
She cautioned lawyers against presenting non-legal materials, including newspaper articles, as authoritative legal sources. The bench explicitly rejected reliance on such material, emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial discipline and grounding arguments strictly within established legal principles.
Kaul argued that the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs under Article 26(b) should not be subordinated to Article 25, except in limited circumstances, such as ensuring access to Hindu religious institutions for all classes of Hindus. The Supreme Court is currently hearing a batch of review petitions related to these issues, focusing on the balance between equality rights and religious autonomy.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing parties opposing the entry of women of menstruating age into the Sabarimala temple, argued that the Constitution itself recognises that certain religious customs may conflict with general anti-discrimination provisions, yet are explicitly protected.
Senior Advocate K Radhakrishnan, appearing for the Pandalam royal family that established the temple dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, expressed concern over remarks made by petitioners. He alleged that some submissions contained derogatory and disrespectful comments about the deity. He stated that such remarks had hurt the sentiments of devotees and criticised the government for not taking action against them.
Meanwhile, advocate M R Shamshad, representing the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, referred to a separate plea for directions to allow women to stand in the front row during Namaz in mosques. He argued that such a plea was misplaced, as it assumes the existence of a sanctum sanctorum in mosques, which is not conceptually accurate.
‘Court cannot rely on unverifiable, informal sources’
Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, referred to a newspaper article written by Shashi Tharoor on the subject of judicial restraint. In response, Justice B V Nagarathna observed that while the court respects the opinions of eminent authors and intellectuals, it cannot rely on unverifiable or informal sources, such as what she described as “WhatsApp University”. She made it clear that although diverse viewpoints are welcome in public discourse, information derived from forwarded messages.