Speaking on Media, Justice (retd) Chandrachud addressed the controversy surrounding his remark about praying before the Ayodhya verdict. He clarified that social media often misinterprets statements made by judges.
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud while defended his statement about praying before the deity a day before delivering the verdict in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. He emphasized that the Indian Constitution does not require a judge to be an atheist to maintain independence.
Speaking on Media, Justice (retd) Chandrachud addressed the controversy surrounding his remark about praying before the Ayodhya verdict. He clarified that social media often misinterprets statements made by judges.
He stated,
“If you look at social media and try and derive what was said by a judge, you will get the wrong answer. I make no bones of the fact that I am a man of faith, our Constitution does not require you to be an atheist to be an independent judge, and I value my faith, what my faith teaches me is the universality of religion and irrespective of who comes to my court, and that applies to all other judges in Supreme Court, you dispense equal and even-handed justice.”
In October last year, while serving as CJI, Chandrachud revealed that he had prayed to God for a resolution to the Ayodhya dispute. He explained that sometimes, despite hearing a case for months, a clear solution does not emerge.
He said,
“Very often, we have cases (to adjudicate) but don’t arrive at a solution. Something similar happened during the Ayodhya (Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute), which was in front of me for three months. I sat before the deity and told him he needs to find a solution.”
He added,
“Believe me, if you have faith, God will always find a way.”
The Supreme Court’s verdict on the Ayodhya dispute was delivered on November 9, 2019, by a five-judge bench led by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi. The ruling allowed for the construction of the Ram temple at the disputed site while also granting five acres of land in Ayodhya for the construction of a mosque. Justice Chandrachud was one of the judges on this landmark bench.
During the interview with journalist Stephen Sackur, Chandrachud explained how judges work in conflict-ridden areas and have different ways to maintain calm and balance.
He shared,
“For me, time in meditation and prayer is very important, but my time in meditation and prayer teaches me to be even-handed to every religious group and community in the country.”
Justice Chandrachud also discussed several significant judgments he was involved in, including the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss a plea challenging the abrogation of Article 370. He defended the ruling by highlighting the temporary nature of Article 370 in the Constitution.
He explained,
“Article 370 when it was introduced into the Constitution was part of a chapter which is titled Transitional Arrangements, it was later renamed Temporary and Transitional Arrangements. Therefore at the birth of the Constitution, the assumption was that what was transitional would have to fade away and merge with the overall context of the Constitution.”
Further justifying the decision, he questioned,
“Is 75 plus years too less for abrogating a transitional provision?”
