IT is bizarre that the Ayodhya and Kashi issues have again started unravelling. These questions remained in suspended animation with orders from the highest judiciary. For many, the Ayodhya verdict was an enigma with the apex court order that those who criminally destroyed Babri Mosque were in fact, to be rewarded with ownership, and facilitated in construction of the Ram Temple. Significantly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi underlined this judicial validation while inaugurating the Ram Mandir. Obviously, in contrast, we had to clearly state that the Supreme Court had ‘delivered a verdict, but not justice’.
But now, former Chief Justice Chandrachud has reopened the entire question. In an interview to Sreenivasan Jain of Newslaundry published this September 24, Chandrachud said, “There was adequate evidence from the archaeological excavation. Now, what the evidentiary value of an archaeological excavation is what a separate issue altogether. All that I want to say really is this, there is evidence in the form of an archaeological report.”
The former CJI’s controversial response was to a question asked by Jain: “The argument there is, the idea that the inner courtyard (of the mosque) was contested was a result of also the Hindus committing illegal acts like desecration and creating disturbance; the fact that the Muslims did not do that in the outer courtyard, they didn’t contest it, then becomes almost the ground to punish them. The fact that you didn’t put up a fight, while the Hindus did, actually weighs against the Muslims is actually one critical reading of the judgment.”
Chandrachud responded, saying, “When you said that it was the Hindus who were desecrating the inner courtyard, what about the fundamental act of desecration – the very erection of the Mosque. You forget all that happened? We forget what happened in history?”
Judicial pronouncements, particularly those from the higher judiciary are crafted with subtle nuance to conceal the rough edges acting as a ‘smokescreen’. Unless they are voluntarily disclosed by the authors they would never be known, let alone understood. This is particularly so, given the exact text of the Ayodhya judgement. What Justice Chandrachud had to say in the interview was completely at variance with what the text of the judgement has to say with respect to the archaeological findings “The report concludes on the basis of the architectural fragments found at the site and the nature of the structure that it was of a Hindu religious origin. The report rejects the possibility (urged by the Sunni Central Waqf Board) of the underlying structure being of Islamic origin. But the ASI report has left unanswered a critical part of the remit which was made to it, namely, a determination of whether a Hindu temple had been demolished to pave way for the construction of the mosque. ASI ‘s inability to render a specific finding on this facet is certainly a significant evidentiary circumstance which must be borne in mind when the cumulative impact of the entire evidence is considered in the final analysis”.
Then the order goes on to further state that –“There is another aspect which needs to be flagged at this stage and which will be considered when the question of title is evaluated. That issue is whether a determination of title can rest on the basis of the ASI findings as they stand. Whether the construction of a mosque in 1528 A.D. (over 450 years ago) on the foundations of an erstwhile religious structure (dating back to the twelfth century A.D.) can result in a finding on the question of title is a distinct matter. At this stage, it will suffice to note that a determination of title was not obviously within the remit of ASI. This is a matter on which the court will need to draw a considered and objective conclusion when it deals with the issue of title later in this judgment”. Therefore, the apex court never came to a decisive conclusion that ‘a temple was destroyed to build a mosque’ as Justice Chandrachud asserts in the interview – “There was adequate evidence from the archaeological excavation”.
On the brazen self-contradiction on allowing excavation at Gyan Vapi Mosque site in Kashi while recommending that ‘character of the religious structure can be investigated, but it cannot be changed’ spelt out by a Supreme Court Bench which figured Justice Chandrachud, the same majoritarian strand can be discerned. In the light of the Places of Worship Act, except for Ayodhya, no other religious site was open to legal challenge. Therefore, the apex court’s position has paved the way for dispute, hate and violence with relation to other sites.
Since the Newslaundry interview has become public all hell has broken loose. However, regrettably public discourse and debate has tended to be confined to the role and persona of Justice Chandrachud. Many other judgements in which the former CJI was involved are coming up for reference, particularly those where RSS-BJP appear to have politically benefitted.
Undoubtedly, this is inevitable. But to remain confined to the subjective consideration alone would be ‘missing the wood for the tree’. The kind of change that the Indian State has undergone can be overlooked only at our own peril. The RSS spearheaded BJP rule is premised on corporate-communal nexus. The very nature of this new direction presupposes a paradigm shift where the democratic secular Republic will suffer extensive erosion and damage. It is clear that the State is not confined to the Executive and Legislature; but includes the Judiciary, as well. Therefore, while there is a concerted effort to do away with the Constitution per se, simultaneously, Judiciary is sought to be brought in alignment with the Hindutva juggernaut as well. Notwithstanding some shining examples of judicial commitment towards principles of Republican jurisprudence and constitutionalism there is a drift. Unfortunately, neither the Ayodhya nor the Gyan Vapi verdicts uphold such constitutional principles and laws of the land premised on such basis.
(October 01, 2025)
