'But Not WhatsApp University': Justice BV Nagarathna’s Witty Takedown Of Misinformation In SC Sabarimala Case

Last Updated:April 23, 2026, 17:53 IST

Beyond the banter, the Supreme Court hearing delved into the core of the Sabarimala reference

The eighth day of the high-stakes Sabarimala reference hearing in the Supreme Court took a sharp, witty turn on Thursday, as Justice BV Nagarathna delivered a firm rebuke to the use of unverified digital information. During a dense legal debate on religious freedom, Justice Nagarathna remarked that the court cannot rely on information sourced from “WhatsApp University"—a popular colloquialism for misinformation spread via messaging apps.

About The Exchange

The light-hearted yet pointed exchange began when Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, cited a newspaper article by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor. The article argued for judicial restraint in matters of deep-seated religious belief, famously noting that legal logic has its limitations when the “gavel falls" on faith.

Chief Justice Surya Kant initially interjected, observing that while the court respects eminent thinkers, “personal opinion is personal opinion" and does not constitute legal precedent. When Kaul countered that there is no harm in drawing wisdom from “any source, any country, or any university" in a rich civilisation like India, Justice Nagarathna quipped, “But not from WhatsApp University." The courtroom ripple of laughter underscored a serious judicial stance: while the court remains open to scholarly debate, it remains a sanctuary of verified facts and constitutional law, immune to the “viral" misinformation of the digital age.

Constitutional Stakes: Morality vs Tradition

Beyond the banter, the hearing delved into the core of the Sabarimala reference, which examines seven fundamental questions about the interplay between individual rights and religious denominational autonomy. Kaul argued that the rights of a religious denomination under Article 26 should not be read as entirely subservient to state-led social reforms under Article 25(2)(b) in all contexts.

Justice Nagarathna, however, maintained a rigorous line of questioning throughout the day. She expressed concern over the use of Article 32 (writ petitions) to challenge settled five-judge bench decisions from decades ago, warning that such a practice could destroy the “finality of law". She had previously remarked during the hearings that women cannot be viewed as “untouchables" for several days a month, directly challenging the biological justifications for certain exclusionary practices.

A Meta-Framework for Faith

The nine-judge bench—which includes Justices MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and others—is not just deciding on Sabarimala. They are crafting a “meta-framework" that will impact various tagged cases, including:

• The right of Muslim women to enter mosques for prayer.
• The excommunication practices within the Dawoodi Bohra community.
• The entry of Parsi women into Fire Temples after marrying outside the faith.

As the Solicitor General recently argued for the abandonment of the “constitutional morality" doctrine in favour of societal tradition, the court’s rejection of “WhatsApp University" signals that its final verdict will be anchored in rigorous constitutional scrutiny rather than the prevailing winds of public or digital sentiment.

News india 'But Not WhatsApp University': Justice BV Nagarathna’s Witty Takedown Of Misinformation In SC Sabarimala Case

Read More