In an exclusive interview with media, Chandrachud clarified that his remarks referred to his personal practice of prayer and meditation, which helps him maintain calm amidst judicial conflicts. He emphasized that his faith never influenced his application of the law or constitutional principles.
New Delhi: On November 26: Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated that his comments about “praying to God” for a solution to the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute were “completely misconstrued.”
In an exclusive interview with media, Chandrachud clarified that his remarks referred to his personal practice of prayer and meditation, which helps him maintain calm amidst judicial conflicts. He emphasized that his faith never influenced his application of the law or constitutional principles.
Addressing social media’s role, he noted, “What you say is compressed into short clips, often distorting the context.”
He recounted a visit to his ancestral village, Kanersar, where he shared insights with local youths about managing stress through prayer.
He reiterated, “I never suggested that divine intervention influenced judicial decisions, including the Ayodhya case. The judgment clearly reflects the application of law and the Constitution.”
Chandrachud highlighted the intense nature of judicial work, from family disputes to government conflicts, requiring judges to find personal grounding.
“A judge does not have to be an atheist. You may be practising, a person of practising faith, but yet to do, you still do justice to every faith, people of all faiths who come before you. And what is ultimately, if you ask yourself this question, whichever faith you’re talking about, what does, what do all our faiths teach you about? They teach you about the universality of the human spirit. And if you really look at any faith that people practice, whether, you know, it’s my faith, it’s somebody else’s faith. I respect all faiths,” he added.
He affirmed, “Practicing faith doesn’t hinder impartiality. A judge’s duty is to ensure justice for people of all faiths.”
Explaining the difference between being “Dharmic” and “Adhyatmic,” he stressed, “Judges must apply the law impartially, regardless of personal beliefs.”
Reflecting on the Ayodhya verdict, he acknowledged its historical significance and the judges’ collective decision not to attribute authorship, aiming to demonstrate unity.
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.
In November 2019, the Supreme Court’s five-judge bench unanimously ruled in favor of Ram Lalla, allocating the disputed 2.7-acre land for a Ram temple, while directing the government to provide five acres at an alternative site for a mosque.
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.
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
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
