Source Live law
NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court’s nine-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, concluded its eighth day of intense deliberations on the Sabarimala reference case this Thursday. The day was marked by sharp judicial observations regarding the source of legal wisdom and the evolving definition of “Hindu denominations” in the eyes of the law.
The bench is currently revisiting the 2018 verdict that struck down the ban on women of menstruating age entering the Sabarimala temple. The scope of this nine-judge bench extends beyond the hilltop shrine, touching upon larger questions of religious freedom and gender equality in other faiths, including the entry of women into mosques and the Parsi community’s practices.
Key Highlights from Day 8:
1. ‘No Room for WhatsApp University‘
In a moment of levity and caution, Justice B.V. Nagarathna made headlines while responding to Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul. When Kaul suggested that knowledge and wisdom should be welcomed from any source—be it a country or a university—Justice Nagarathna quipped, “But not from WhatsApp University.” The remark underscored the Court’s insistence on rigorous legal scholarship and verified jurisprudence over populist sentiment or digital misinformation.
2. The Identity of a ‘Hindu‘
Justice Nagarathna further clarified the legal standing of religious denominations. She noted that while a person might not be identified as a “Hindu per se” in a strict theological sense, if they are governed by Hindu personal laws—such as marriage and succession acts—they are legally categorized under the Hindu umbrella.
“A Hindu is a Hindu and can go to any temple,” she remarked, emphasizing that worship is an inherent facet of the religion protected by the Constitution.
3. Constitutional Morality vs. Religious Rights
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the head of the Dawoodi Bohra community, argued that Article 26(b) (the right of a denomination to manage its own affairs) should not be eclipsed by Article 25 (freedom of conscience and religion) except in very narrow circumstances. He contended that “Constitutional Morality” should not be used as a tool to restrict religious rights unless an “abhorrent social evil” is present.
4. Concerns Over the ‘Sentiments of Believers‘
Representing the Pandalam Royal Family, Senior Advocate K. Radhakrishnan raised emotional arguments, claiming that the original petitioners in the 2018 case were “practically non-believers.” He alleged that the legal challenge had led to “scurrilous remarks” against Lord Ayyappa, wounding the sentiments of millions of devotees.
What’s Next?
The nine-judge bench, which includes Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, is navigating a complex legal labyrinth. They are tasked with deciding whether a person who does not belong to a specific religious group can challenge that group’s practices through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
As the hearing progresses, the Court continues to weigh the state’s power to reform “social evils” against the sanctity of age-old traditions. With the amicus curiae scheduled to conclude arguments shortly, a landmark ruling that will redefine the intersection of faith and the Indian Constitution is expected later this term.
Case Title: Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, and Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, A.G. Masih, R. Mahadevan, Prasanna B. Varale, and Joymalya Bagchi.
