Justice Sharma criticized these remarks, as they could imply personal beliefs influencing judicial outcomes. Given the sensitive nature of the Ayodhya judgment, which had allowed for the construction of a Ram temple while allocating land for a mosque, the statement has raised eyebrows.
NEW DELHI: Justice Rekha Sharma has expressed strong disapproval of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud’s recent comments regarding the 2019 Ayodhya verdict, stating that she was “dumbfounded” by his remarks.
The controversy erupted when CJI Chandrachud, during an interaction in his native village, revealed that he had “prayed to God” for a resolution to the Ayodhya dispute.
He explained that the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, which the Supreme Court had adjudicated over three months, was particularly challenging, and he sought divine intervention, believing that faith can provide solutions.
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.”
Justice Sharma criticized these remarks, as they could imply personal beliefs influencing judicial outcomes. Given the sensitive nature of the Ayodhya judgment, which had allowed for the construction of a Ram temple while allocating land for a mosque, the statement has raised eyebrows.
Several political figures also reacted, with some questioning whether divine faith should have a place in judicial decisions.
The judgment, issued in 2019, was authored by a five-judge bench, including CJI Chandrachud, but the court had chosen to present the verdict without attributing it to any individual judge. This approach was intended to signal unanimity in the court’s reasoning.
However, the CJI’s personal reflection on the case has now stirred debate on the separation between faith and judicial responsibility, raising concerns about maintaining the impartiality of the judiciary.
Critics, including political figures like Udit Raj, argue that such remarks may undermine the credibility of the judiciary, suggesting that public and personal beliefs could affect outcomes in high-profile cases.
