Prof. Mohan Gopal said the Ayodhya judgment can be challenged through a curative petition based on Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud’s remark that the very erection of the Babri Masjid was an act of desecration of a temple.
A recent post-retirement interview with former Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, has caused a considerable legal debate, with prominent scholars and senior lawyers suggesting that his remarks could serve as grounds for a Curative petition against the Supreme Court’s landmark 2019 Ayodhya judgment.
This controversy highlights a significant contradiction between Justice Chandrachud’s statements and the explicit findings of the Constitution Bench he was part of, raising serious issues around judicial integrity, transparency, and the finality of one of India’s most sensitive legal decisions.
During a seminar, legal academic Professor Dr. Mohan G. Gopal argued that Justice Chandrachud’s assertion that the construction of the Babri Masjid was a “fundamental act of desecration” provides sufficient new grounds to challenge the 2019 ruling.
This claim has stirred the legal community, as it appears to directly contradict the carefully articulated, unanimous judgment, which concluded that there was no evidence of a temple being demolished to build the mosque.
The 2019 judgment, delivered by a five-judge bench including then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S. Abdul Nazeer, awarded the disputed land for the construction of a Ram Temple.
While it ruled in favor of the Hindu parties based on the “balance of probabilities,” citing their long-standing worship, it also made a pivotal finding of fact.
The judgment explicitly stated,
“The A.S.I. report has not commented on the cause of destruction of the underlying structure… Thus, there is no evidence to show that the earlier structure was demolished for the purpose of construction of the mosque.”
However, in a recent interview, Justice Chandrachud, widely considered to be the principal author of the unsigned judgment, presented a differing viewpoint. He claimed that the very establishment of the Babri Masjid was an act of desecration of a prior temple. This commentary after retirement has been seized upon by critics who argue that it reveals a pre-existing belief that was not disclosed and was, in fact, contradicted by the official judicial reasoning.
Professor Gopal, speaking at the CH Mohammed Koya National Seminar at the University of Calicut, articulated the legal risks this poses for the judgment.
He stated,
“The ultimate responsibility of a court is to deliver judgments that inspire trust,”
He also added,
“Justice must not only be done but also seen to be done, especially by those who lose the case… The question now is whether we should work together to file a curative petition, in light of what Justice Chandrachud has said. Maybe we should.”
A curative petition is the rarest legal remedy in the Indian judicial system, considered only in exceptional cases to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct significant violations of natural justice, even after a review petition has been dismissed.
Professor Gopal argues that Justice Chandrachud’s comments suggest a potential bias that was not disclosed during the proceedings, thereby undermining the verdict.
Professor Gopal contended,
“If Justice Chandrachud had strong beliefs about the Ayodhya issue, then he should have recused himself from the matter, saying he can’t take an objective view on this matter because he believed that the construction of Babri Masjid is a desecration,”
He framed the issue as a fundamental question of judicial integrity, questioning whether Justice Chandrachud, whom he described as “a good friend of mine and a remarkable jurist,” exhibited the necessary transparency expected of a judge in such a monumental case.
This reasoning touches upon the core principle of nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause), which applies to situations where a judge’s personal beliefs might create a reasonable perception of bias.
Beyond specific comments, Professor Gopal offered a broader critique of the 2019 verdict itself, labeling it “contrived” and “unreasoned.”
He pointed to the unsigned addendum to the judgment, which explored theological and historical aspects, as “pure theocracy” and a dubious part of the overall ruling.
He declared,
“The whole judgment is suspect,”
His call for greater judicial transparency resonated with the audience. Citing the late Justice Chinnappa Reddy, who openly identified as a Marxist, and former CJI U.U. Lalit and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat’s transparent discussions in the EWS quota case, Gopal emphasized that the legal system requires honesty, not a façade of ideological neutrality.
He said,
“We have judges with all kinds of ideologies, that is inevitable, All we want is sincerity and honesty, and transparency.”
The ramifications of Justice Chandrachud’s comments could be extensive. Legally, they provide a potentialthough challenging path for parties to revisit the Ayodhya dispute through a curative petition. Such a petition would require parties to persuade the Supreme Court that these new revelations constitute a grave error undermining the foundation of the original verdict.
Systemically, this episode fuels a crucial dialogue about the conduct of judges, both on and off the bench. While post-retirement speeches and writings by judges are common, a statement that seems to retrospectively alter the reasoning or foundation of a landmark judgment is highly unusual.
It raises questions about the integrity of the written judicial word and whether the reasoning articulated in a judgment is a complete and honest basis for the decision.
For the legal profession, this is a strong reminder that justice should not only be done but also be seen as done. The trust of the public, especially of the losing side, depends on the belief that judges are fair and neutral. If a judge later makes comments that create doubt about this fairness, it weakens the credibility of the court itself.
This concern is now linked to one of the most important judgments in the history of the Indian Supreme Court.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
