Former CJI DY Chandrachud called the construction of Babri Masjid a “fundamental act of desecration” in a Newslaundry interview, reigniting controversy over the Ayodhya verdict. His remarks have drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, journalists, and public commentators across India.
Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has once again stirred public debate by calling the very construction of the Babri Masjid a “fundamental act of desecration” during an interview with Sreenivasan Jain for Newslaundry.
In the discussion, Chandrachud reflected on some of the most polarising cases of recent times, including the Ayodhya verdict, the Gyanvapi mosque survey, and his claim of seeking “guidance from God” in difficult judicial decisions.
“The erection of the Babri Masjid in 1528 was itself a fundamental act of desecration of a site believed by Hindus to be Lord Ram’s birthplace,”
he said, echoing a key observation from the landmark judgment.
ALSO READ: Inclined to Lift Ban on Bike Taxis if No Rules Framed: Karnataka High Court
The 2019 Ayodhya verdict, which cleared the path for the construction of the Ram Temple on the site of the demolished mosque, remains one of the most debated and scrutinised rulings in the history of India’s judiciary.
Chandrachud, who was part of the five-judge bench led by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi, was questioned on whether the decision leaned more towards faith rather than factual evidence. He strongly defended the judgment, alleging that critics often have a “selective view of history.”
“A lot of people talk about the judgment without having read a single page,”
Chandrachud said, explaining,
“In the 1,045-page judgment, there is an extensive elaboration on the evidence. We examined archaeological reports, historical texts, traveller accounts from the 19th century, and even revenue records. The core finding was that the underlying structure beneath the Babri Masjid indicated a pre-existing Hindu temple. This wasn’t about belief, it was about facts presented before us.”
He further clarified that the bench’s unanimous decision to allot the disputed 2.77 acres to the Hindu parties was based on legal title suits and not “religious sentiment.”
At the same time, he highlighted that the judgment also provided an alternative five-acre plot for a mosque, demonstrating the court’s attempt to maintain balance.
ALSO READ: Court Rejects Bail of Lawrence Bishnoi Gang Member in Salman Khan House Shooting Case
Despite this, some critics, including senior advocate and former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, have argued that the verdict undermined India’s secular fabric by favouring Hindu claims. Chandrachud dismissed such claims, stating,
“Secularism in India isn’t atheism, it’s equality of all faiths. The Constitution doesn’t require judges to be atheists; it requires us to be impartial.”
Addressing his remark about judges turning into social reformers after retirement, Justice S Muralidhar responded positively, saying,
“I take it as a compliment. He is fully aware that even before becoming a judge, I was associated with a large number of PILs and social causes. Even as a lawyer, I have taken up many such cases and argued in Court. So I don’t think he meant it negatively at all. Knowing Justice Chandrachud, I take it as a compliment.”
The interview also touched upon the 2023 Supreme Court order permitting a videographic survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, authored by Chandrachud when he was CJI.
This move, made despite the 1991 Places of Worship Act, which freezes the religious character of all places of worship as of August 15, 1947, has opened up litigation in over 100 sites.
Advocate Ashish Goel commented on Chandrachud’s media appearances, saying,
“With each media appearance, DY Chandrachud is inching closer to his dream job. Nothing he says or does surprises me. There’s plenty of evidence to show he compromised his integrity as a judge to align with the executive. I’m just curious to find out what he gets in exchange for his soul.”
Read Tweet by Advocate Prashant Bhushan:
Advocate Prashant Bhushan also criticised Chandrachud, stating,
“To justify giving the mosque land to its destroyers, he cites the destruction of a temple 500 years ago, for which there is no evidence. It is no surprise, then, that he allowed the Gyanvapi mosque survey to continue, even though his Ayodhya judgment made clear that the Places of Worship Act was meant to prevent such disputes. Truly despicable!”
Author Suchitra Vijayan remarked that Chandrachud’s views
“should surprise no one who has actually read the judgment, or who has followed Chandrachud’s long career on the bench.”
She added that in India, what often passes for progressiveness is
“really just a liberal-linguistic performance: the right words strung together, with regular reassurances to the public that constitutional courts are still working, even if imperfectly.”
She further noted that Chandrachud is not only aligned with the Sangh, though he is, but is also “a man of immense ambition,” predicting that when the history of India’s constitutional destruction is written, both father and son will occupy “prominent, troubling chapters.”
Journalist Waquar Hasan commented,
“Chandrachud is a good example to illustrate that liberals in India are not fundamentally against Hindutva; they are, in fact, silent supporters of Hindu supremacists.”
An X user, Mohanakrishnan, pointed out,
“Maybe DY Chandrachud should read the judgment again, it clearly says, ‘Report does not provide whether the earlier structure was demolished for the purposes of construction of the mosque,” asking, “Why is he now talking about the act of desecration?”
Journalist Maqsood echoed this concern, saying,
“To the fascists seething in my mentions, Chandrachud is contradicting his own judgment, which held that the Archaeological Survey of India couldn’t ascertain the religious nature of the structure or the cause of its destruction.”
The former CJI also addressed the controversy over his “Guidance from God” remarks, which had drawn sharp criticism.
The Wire’s Siddharth Varadarajan said,
“Justice Chandrachud should not blame God for his own awful Ayodhya judgment,” arguing that it undermined the separation of faith and law. Some commentators even called it “a mockery of the court,” suggesting that mob pressure, rather than divine guidance, influenced the outcome.
Chandrachud reflected on the challenges during his tenure, which included petitions on same-sex marriage and transparency in electoral bonds.
“We live in polarised times,”
he said.
“Judges are human; we err, but we strive for institutional integrity.”
Since his elevation to the Supreme Court in 2016, Chandrachud has been widely regarded as a liberal, known for progressive judgments reflecting a broad understanding of constitutional law.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Allows Ram Lila in UP School Playground, Halts Allahabad High Court Ban
During the interview, Sreenivasan Jain suggested that the judgment seemed to weigh against Muslims because they did not contest the outer courtyard, unlike Hindus who allegedly committed illegal acts in the inner courtyard.
In response, Chandrachud emphasized,
“When you said that it was the Hindus who were desecrating the inner courtyard, what about the fundamental act of desecration- the very erection of the Mosque. You forget all that happened? We forget what happened in history?”
He reiterated that archaeological evidence indicated the presence of a temple beneath the mosque, which had been destroyed.
Chandrachud argued that critics adopt a selective view of history, ignoring evidence beyond certain periods to support their interpretations:
“What is really being done by many of these commentators… is that you have a selective view of history, ignore evidence of what happened beyond a certain period in history and start looking at evidence which is of a more comparative.”
Jain pointed out that the judgment itself stated there was no evidence that the underlying structure was demolished to build the mosque and that centuries separated the two.
Chandrachud responded,
“There was adequate evidence from the archaeological excavation. Now, what the evidentiary value of an archaeological excavation is what a separate issue altogether. All that I want to say really is this, there is evidence in the form of an archaeological report.”
He further defended the decision on land allocation, stating that partitioning the land was unnecessary if peaceful coexistence was possible:
“People who criticise the judgment want to ignore the fundamental history of the mosque and then look at the more comparative history and selective history in support of what they postulate. Second, what you are saying that the Court could have partitioned the land and given one side one part and the other side another part, well if people could live in peace, there was no reason for judicial statesmanship.”
When asked whether desecration of the underlying structure would justify demolishing the mosque, Chandrachud said:
“Not at all. Supreme Court judgment applies conventional yardsticks of determining the adverse possession and it is on the basis of evidence and conventional yardsticks that we have applied and come to the conclusion. The criticism that the judgment is based on faith and not on evidence is a criticism, I dare say, of those who have not read the judgment.”
Contrary to Chandrachud’s assertions, the Supreme Court judgment did not conclusively state that the mosque was built over a temple.
It referred to the ASI report, which suggested a pre-existing 12th-century structure possibly of Hindu origin, but the report was inconclusive regarding whether it was a temple or if it had been demolished to construct the mosque.
The judgment highlighted the nearly 400-year gap between the underlying structure and the mosque, noting:
“A finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI. Between the twelfth century to which the underlying structure is dated and the construction of the mosque in the sixteenth century, there is an intervening period of four centuries. No evidence has been placed on the record in relation to the course of human history between the twelfth and sixteen centuries. No evidence is available in a case of this antiquity on (i) the cause of destruction of the underlying structure; and (ii) whether the pre-existing structure was demolished for the construction of the mosque. Title to the land must be decided on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial.”
The judgment also clarified that the ASI report did not link the pillars used in the mosque to the pre-existing structure, and that the evidentiary value of archaeological findings alone could not determine ownership.
With two years left in his tenure—the longest for a Chief Justice of India in 14 years—he was expected to leave a significant mark.
However, benches led by him were often seen as favouring the ruling party, particularly in roster decisions determining which judges heard certain cases. His public outreach was also perceived by some as closely aligning with the politics of the government.
“DY Chandrachud on Babri Masjid: Defending the Ayodhya Verdict Amid Criticism, Historical Debate, and Judicial Reflections”
The discussion also touched upon reflections from former High Court judge Justice S. Muralidhar, who had earlier commented that the Supreme Court could have explored alternative settlements in the Ayodhya dispute.
Justice Muralidhar suggested that a more balanced allocation of the land might have reduced communal tensions, implying that the court could have used judicial discretion to partition the site in a manner acceptable to both communities.
Responding to this, former CJI Chandrachud defended the court’s approach, emphasizing adherence to conventional legal principles over judicial statesmanship.
He stated that the judgment was based on evidence of legal title and historical records, not on faith or social engineering:
“Second, what you are saying that the Court could have partitioned the land and given one side one part and the other side another part, well if people could live in peace, there was no reason for judicial statesmanship.”
Chandrachud further clarified the historical context, asserting that critics often selectively interpret history while ignoring key evidence:
“People who criticise the judgment want to ignore the fundamental history of the mosque and then look at the more comparative history and selective history in support of what they postulate.”
The former CJI also addressed the broader issue of desecration, reminding that the construction of the Babri Masjid itself in 1528 constituted what he described as a “fundamental act of desecration”, a view critics argue goes beyond the legal record:
“When you said that it was the Hindus who were desecrating the inner courtyard, what about the fundamental act of desecration—the very erection of the Mosque. You forget all that happened? We forget what happened in history?”
Despite this, the Supreme Court judgment did not conclusively hold that the mosque was built over a temple. It relied on the ASI report, which found remnants of a 12th-century structure possibly of Hindu origin, but the report did not confirm whether it was demolished to construct the mosque.
“Supreme Court on Evidence and Title in the Ayodhya Case”
A finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI. Between the twelfth century to which the underlying structure is dated and the construction of the mosque in the sixteenth century, there is an intervening period of four centuries.
No evidence has been placed on the record in relation to the course of human history between the twelfth and sixteen centuries.
No evidence is available in a case of this antiquity on (i) the cause of destruction of the underlying structure; and (ii) whether the pre-existing structure was demolished for the construction of the mosque.
Title to the land must be decided on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Former CJI DY Chandrachud
