Recently, the Chief Justice remarked that he prayed to God for a resolution to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.
NEW DELHI: Today (23rd Oct): A Bollywood actress has raised concerns regarding Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud’s comments on the Ayodhya Ram Temple decision, labeling it as “terrible” without directly naming him. She criticized the country’s top judges for attributing the responsibility for their decisions to God.
Recently, the Chief Justice remarked that he prayed to God for a resolution to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.
In response, the actress questioned the Chief Justice’s assertion, stating,
“How spontaneous was it for the country’s top judge to blame God for his terrible decision?” The Shiv Sena (UBT) has also challenged the CJI’s statement.
In an editorial published in the party’s mouthpiece, Saamana, the Uddhav faction of Shiv Sena wrote,
“Is justice administered according to the law and the Constitution? Judges should now seek guidance from their respective deities. Chandrachud sahab has shown that path. The Chief Justice mentioned that when the Babri case regarding the Ram temple came before him, he prayed to God for a solution, saying, ‘Now you will have to find a solution.'”
The editorial continued,
“Which God did the Chief Justice pray to? Was it the thirteenth or the fourteenth incarnation of Vishnu? Although the Ram temple has been constructed in Ayodhya, it is clear that Lord Shri Ram was not pleased with the thirteenth incarnation during the Lok Sabha elections. The court should refrain from interfering in matters of faith, as legal provisions become ineffective in such cases.”
Last week, while visiting his native village Kanhersar in Pune, CJI Chandrachud stated,
“Often, cases come before us, but we struggle to reach a resolution. A similar situation occurred during the Ayodhya dispute, which was before me for three months. I sat before God and told Him that He needed to find a solution.” He added, “Believe me, if you have faith, God will always find a way.”
Supreme Court’s Ayodhya Verdict
In September 2010, the Allahabad High Court issued a ruling that divided the Ayodhya land title into three equal parts, granting portions to the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram (represented by Triloki Nath Pandey, an RSS volunteer and Vishva Hindu Parishad functionary who replaced Agarwal after his death), and the Sunni Waqf Board.
All parties involved in the case filed appeals, asserting their claims over the disputed land. In 2011, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s decision.
On September 27, 2018, a three-judge bench delivered its decision on whether the case should be referred to a larger Constitution Bench (comprising five judges). The court ruled that a three-judge bench could continue hearing the matter, rejecting the need for a Constitution Bench on the basis that the Faruqui case did not require re-examination. The Faruqui case had established that mosques are not an essential feature of Islam.
Justice Bhushan, writing for Chief Justice Misra and himself, authored the majority opinion, while Justice Nazeer dissented:
- Justice Bhushan wrote the majority opinion.
- Justice Nazeer provided a dissenting opinion.
Following Chief Justice Dipak Misra’s retirement on October 2, 2018, his successor, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, used his administrative authority to reassign the dispute to a five-judge Constitution Bench on January 8, 2019.
On November 9, 2019, when the Supreme Court, under the leadership of then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi, delivered a historic judgment. The verdict resolved a century-old conflict by allowing the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya.
The bench also directed that a mosque be built on an alternate five-acre plot within Ayodhya. The five-judge bench ruled in favor of Ram Lalla, assigning the disputed land to a government-established trust.
Notably, CJI Chandrachud was a part of the bench that issued this landmark ruling.
