Sabarimala review: SC says ‘Tharoor’s view is personal opinion, not law’

Supreme Court clarifies that personal opinions on religion, including MP Shashi Tharoor’s article, are not binding law during the Sabarimala case hearings.

Sabarimala reference, Day 8

The Supreme Court’s nine‑judge Constitution Bench on Thursday recorded another acerbic day in the Sabarimala temple review hearings, as Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice B. V. Nagarathna drew a sharp line between distinguished public intellectuals and actual law. The remark came while the Bench examined the scope of religious freedom and the legitimacy of sources cited by advocates, including a newspaper article by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on judicial restraint in religious matters.

‘Personal opinion is personal opinion’

CJI Surya Kant told the court that while eminent personalities and legal thinkers deserve respect, their writings and opinions remain individual views and do not constitute binding constitutional precedent. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing the Dawoodi Bohra community, had referred to Tharoor’s piece to argue for broader deference to religious bodies in matters of faith. The Chief Justice’s observation underscored that the court’s mandate is to interpret the Constitution, not to adopt any columnist’s editorial stance as doctrine.

‘No WhatsApp University’ remark

Justice B. V. Nagarathna, in a now‑viral remark, told counsel that information from “WhatsApp University” cannot be accepted as credible evidence in constitutional litigation. She made the comment in response to Kaul’s argument that knowledge should be welcomed irrespective of its source, including digital platforms and informal networks. The quip, treated lightly in the courtroom, carried a serious message: the Bench will not rely on unverified, viral narratives when deciding the limits of religious freedom and gender equality.

Ruling on sources and arguments

The exchange highlighted the court’s growing discomfort with advocates leaning on social‑media‑era information rather than constitutional text, case law, and legislative history. Kaul clarified that he was not seeking to rank universities or information channels, but insisted that persuasive ideas can come from any source, any country, or any academic tradition. The judges, however, reiterated that in matters of constitutional interpretation, only verifiable, authoritative sources would carry weight.

Constitutional morality debate

A separate line of questioning touched on the concept of “constitutional morality” in Articles 25 and 26, with Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah describing it as a flexible principle. Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued that constitutional morality was originally meant for structures of governance, not for cutting down rights of religious denominations. Justices, however, pressed him on whether the morality benchmark in religious‑freedom clauses inherently tracks evolving constitutional values.

Impact on Sabarimala and beyond

The exchanges are significant for the Sabarimala references, which ask the court to revisit its 2018 verdict that struck down the ban on women aged 10–50 entering the Ayyappa shrine. By underscoring that neither editorials nor WhatsApp forwards will shape its interpretation, the Bench signals that the decision will rest on constitutional text, precedent, and the delicate balance between gender equality and religious autonomy. Legal observers say this reinforces the expectation of a tightly reasoned, precedent‑anchored judgment instead of a populist or emotive verdict.

What the Sabarimala case seeks

The nine‑judge Bench is hearing multiple petitions that question the 2018 ruling, as well as the broader “essential religious practice” test used to decide which rituals can be protected under Article 26. The case also overlaps with wider disputes over women’s entry into mosques and other religious sites, making the judgment likely to influence rules at temples, shrines, and places of worship across India. With the hearings now in their second week, the Sabarimala case is set to offer one of the most consequential readings of religious freedom and gender equality in recent years.