Former CJI DY Chandrachud clarified that the Ayodhya verdict was delivered on legal principles and evidence, not faith. Speaking at a Mumbai conclave, he said parts of his remarks on Babri Masjid were taken out of context and stressed that critics often judge the 1,045 page judgement without reading it fully.
Former CJI DY Chandrachud. Filepic
Putting light on his judgement that changed the political and sentimental structure of India, former CJI DY Chandrachud says that the Ayodhya case was decided not on the basis of faith but on evidence and legal principles.
Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also clarified that his remarks that "erection of the Babri Masjid was a fundamental act of desecration," given to a media portal, have been taken out of context. He further highlighted that the wrong interpretation of his statements by people led to the Ayodhya dispute.
While speaking at the conclave in Mumbai on Thursday, the former CJI asserted, "What is happening on social media is that people lift one part of the answer and combine it with another part, completely removing the context," as cited by news agency ANI.
Shedding light on the Supreme Court judgement on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, Chandrachud said that most people have not read the judgement thoroughly; still, they tend to express opinions on social media platforms without reading the verdict document.
Chandrachud said, "The judgement was 1,045 pages long because the case record was over 30,000 pages. Most people who criticise it have not read the judgement. It is easy to post opinions on social media without reading the full document," as per ANI.
"We must not forget what happened in history. These facts were part of the evidence we considered in the case," the former CJI added.
Justice Chandrachud was part of the five-judge bench that cleared the way for the construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
Former CJI Chandrachud also pointed out that on social media platforms, judicial independence has taken a binary route, and that's how people these days are labelling judges.
He added, "Unless a judge decides every case according to a netizen's ideological view, they are not considered independent. Independence is also seen as only deciding cases against the government. But if you decide even one case in favour of the government, you are called "pro-government", as per ANI.
Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also listed examples of cases where the verdict was given against the government, including the electoral bonds case, the Aligarh Muslim University minority status case, and the Aadhaar verdict.
When asked whether publicly admitting to prayer before such a significant ruling violated the constitutional principle of judicial neutrality, Chandrachud emphasised that, "Every day, judges enter a zone of conflict. I pray or meditate each morning to bring peace and equilibrium to my work," reported ANI.
Chandrachud, while expressing his religious beliefs, said that he recited the Navkar Mantra each day while serving as Chief Justice and had visited various religious places, including a dargah during his time at the Allahabad High Court and a church during visits to Goa.
He said, "My belief allows space for others to believe differently. There is nothing wrong with quiet reflection or prayer that helps a judge do justice with an even hand." He clarified that such personal practices are protected under the Constitution, which guarantees every individual, including judges, the right to belief, as cited by the news agency ANI.
(With inputs from ANI)
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
