Solicitor General Tushar Mehta revealed that deliberate attempts were made to delay the 2019 Ayodhya verdict, but the Supreme Court’s judges displayed exceptional judicial statesmanship, ensuring the historic Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case was resolved smoothly and fairly.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta has revealed that deliberate attempts were made to delay the hearing of the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid dispute before the Supreme Court of India. Speaking at the launch of the book “Case for Ram – The Untold Insiders’ Story”, Mehta recalled dramatic moments from the landmark case that culminated in the 2019 Ayodhya verdict.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Rejects Advocate Mehmood Pracha’s Plea Challenging Ayodhya Verdict
Mehta disclosed that two eminent counsels had walked out of the courtroom during the hearing, after failing to postpone proceedings.
“One incident which had left a very bitter taste in my mind is when all attempts to delay failed, two of the eminent counsels staged a walkout, which is something we have only heard in Parliament,”
he said.
The Solicitor General praised the five-judge bench led by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, noting their “amazing skills of judicial statesmanship” in ensuring that the case moved forward fairly despite the challenges.
The 2019 Ayodhya Judgment
The Ayodhya judgment, delivered in November 2019, remains one of the most detailed rulings in Indian legal history, a 1,045-page verdict built on a record spanning over 30,000 pages of evidence and submissions.
The Supreme Court described the dispute as one that transcended ordinary property or religious conflicts, involving deep intersections of faith, history, and societal harmony. The Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, emphasizing its power to deliver “complete justice” when conventional laws fall short.
In referencing Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India, the bench clarified that Article 142 remedies must align with fundamental public policy, ensuring that equitable justice remains consistent with constitutional principles.
The Court drew on historical findings cited by the Allahabad High Court, which documented the destruction of a Ram temple and the reuse of its materials in constructing Babur’s mosque. This historical continuity reinforced the Court’s acknowledgment that the Ayodhya conflict was not a modern controversy, but a long-standing cultural and legal grievance.
By blending history, equity, and constitutional interpretation, the judgment symbolized India’s vision of inclusive justice, balancing the rights of faith communities while maintaining secular integrity.
Former Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, who was part of the original bench, recently revisited the Ayodhya case, calling it primarily a property dispute, not an ideological clash.
“Read the judgment… Most of the people who attack us don’t have the patience to read a 1,045-page judgment. It was that long because the record was 30,000 pages,”
he said.
Addressing questions on personal faith, Justice Chandrachud explained that his spirituality acts as a moral compass, not an influence on judicial decisions.
“My religion allows me to pray across religions. It gives me inner balance so that my work as a judge does not end in injustice to anybody,”
he added.
He further added,
“I don’t think there is anything wrong in doing what I did every single day of my life as a judge – namely, spending my moments in quiet reflection and prayer in the morning so that the work which I do as a judge, work which is in a zone of intense conflict, does not end in injustice to anybody. The Constitution allows me to do it”.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Ram Temple
