Retired Justice Rohinton Nariman’s lecture on secularism in India’s Constitution critically addressed the Babri Masjid case and the controversial 2019 Ayodhya verdict. He emphasized the constitutional commitment to religious neutrality and criticized the judgment for undermining secularism, calling it a “travesty of justice.” Nariman urged for stronger safeguards for secularism amid increasing communal disputes.
New Delhi: Retired Supreme Court Judge, Justice Rohinton Nariman, delivered the Ahmadi Foundation Inaugural Lecture on the topic Secularism and the Indian Constitution on Friday (Dec 6th), where he critiqued the treatment of secularism in India’s legal history, particularly through the lens of the Babri Masjid dispute. His lecture not only highlighted the constitutional framework of secularism but also delved deeply into the controversial 2019 Ayodhya verdict, which allowed the construction of a Ram Mandir at the site where the Babri Masjid once stood. In his words –
“The finding that the Court came out with..was that there was no Ram Mandir under the structure..”
Justice Nariman’s address was an eye-opening examination of the intersections between law, religion, and the principle of secularism in India, with a particular focus on the judicial approach toward the Babri Masjid case. Through a meticulous analysis of the historical and legal events surrounding the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the subsequent court rulings, Justice Nariman expressed profound concerns about the disregard for secularism, a core tenet of the Indian Constitution.
The Constitutional Foundation of Secularism
Justice Nariman began his lecture by offering a detailed outline of the provisions under the Indian Constitution that fortify the principles of secularism. He explained that the Constitution enshrines the values of religious neutrality, equality before the law, and the protection of religious freedoms. He said –
“First it appointed a Liberhan Commission, which of course slept over for 17 years and then delivered a report in 2009. Second, it had Ayodhya Acquisition of Areas Act and concomitantly a Presidential Reference to the Supreme Court to determine, I would submit rather mischievously, whether there was a Hindu temple underneath the mosque.”
These principles are not merely abstract ideals; they are integral to the fabric of India’s legal and social systems. The Constitution, he emphasized, was designed to ensure that no religion would dominate over others and that all citizens, regardless of their faith, would enjoy equal rights and protection under the law.
The Ayodhya Verdict: A Curious Judgment
Moving on to the application of secular principles in actual legal practice, Justice Nariman focused on the Ayodhya verdict. He referred to the decision made by the Supreme Court’s five-judge bench in 2019, which paved the way for the construction of a Ram Mandir at the disputed site. This ruling, while resolving the longstanding dispute, was a subject of controversy, particularly in its handling of secularism.
He stated –
The mosque itself was built in 1528. Then, the mosque continues as a mosque until, there was trouble in 1853. This is the first time there is trouble. After there is trouble, just as the Crown is due to take over in 1858 from the East India Company, a wall is built by the British between the inner and outer courtyard. Inner courtyard was the precincts of the mosque and the outer courtyard was just outside the precincts. After that British wall, prayer was conducted by both sides. So, outer courtyard, the prayers were conducted by Hindus and inner courtyard by Muslims. So, it’s a recorded fact that prayers were conducted on both sides right from 1857 uptil 1949….In 1949, 50-60 people stormed the mosque and put idols as a result of which, all Muslim prayers ceased,”
Justice Nariman basically described the judgment as a “very curious judgment,” remarking that the authorship of the verdict remained unclear, stating, “Nobody knows who the author was..” His critique extended to the Court’s findings that there was no Ram Temple under the structure that remained after the Babri Masjid was demolished. Justice Nariman highlighted that despite archaeological findings, the judgment disregarded the secular underpinnings of the case, making it a “travesty of justice.”
He further added,
“Despite the finding that Muslims were praying from 1857 to 1949, the Court said they cannot say they were in exclusive possession and this side was disputed. Court said it was disputed in the sense that egregious attempts were made to dislodge them contrary to rule of law, which is the finding of the court. 3 times it happened. It happened in 1857, 1934, and 1940. They go on to say that therefore, we cannot say that this side is undisputed. Whatever this means. Since this side is now undisputed, we cannot say they have exclusive possession of the inner side. Therefore, this is one composite whole and we now jump to the conclusion that the composite whole now belongs to Hindus,”
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) Report
Referring to the 2003 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report, Justice Nariman explained that the ASI found artefacts belonging to multiple religious groups, including Shaivaite, Buddhist, and Jain, at the Babri Masjid site. Despite these findings, the Court concluded that the composite whole of the Babri Masjid site now belonged to Hindus. According to Justice Nariman, “the Court jumped to the conclusion that composite whole now belongs to Hindus.” This assertion was controversial, as it disregarded the historical and religious complexity of the site.
Justice Nariman also pointed out the Court’s finding that the inner courtyard of the Babri Masjid was not in exclusive possession of the Muslims. The Court, he argued, failed to recognize the ongoing Muslim prayers held at the mosque from 1857 to 1949 and instead made sweeping conclusions about the disputed nature of the site, concluding that “since this side is now undisputed, we cannot say they have exclusive possession of the inner side.”
Secularism and the Babri Masjid Dispute
One of Justice Nariman’s most striking remarks was his assertion that “secularism was not given its due” in the Ayodhya judgment. He highlighted how the legal and political handling of the Babri Masjid case failed to adequately protect the secular values that the Indian Constitution upholds. His analysis of the judicial process surrounding the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 revealed a series of government and legal failures that contributed to the breakdown of secularism.
In particular, Justice Nariman criticized the government’s response after the demolition. He recalled how the Indian government, instead of addressing the violation of secularism, created commissions that failed to act promptly. “First it appointed a Liberhan Commission, which of course slept over for 17 years and then delivered a report in 2009.” He also referred to the Ayodhya Acquisition of Areas Act, which led to the controversial Presidential Reference, asking whether there was a Hindu temple beneath the mosque.
Justice Nariman also referred to the Supreme Court’s 1994 verdict in the Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui case, where the Court upheld the acquisition of 67 acres of land at Ayodhya but was sharply divided on whether the law violated secular principles. The Court upheld the acquisition in a 3:2 majority, with Justice Ahmadi in the minority, stating that the law violated the secular ethos of the Constitution.
The Ram Janmabhoomi Case (2019) Verdict
When discussing the final verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, Justice Nariman expressed dissatisfaction with how the Court handled the legal reasoning. While the judgment allowed the construction of a Ram Mandir, the Court simultaneously acknowledged that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was an egregious violation of law.
“One other very important finding. Every single time, it is the Hindu side which has done something contrary to the rule of law. For that, reparations have to be made. What was the reparation? One would have though they will rebuild the mosque. But it was we will give them some land to build a mosque on their own. In my humble opinion, it was a great travesty of justice that secularism was not given its due at all by these judgments,”
Justice Nariman said, emphasizing the need for reparations to be made for the destruction of the mosque.
He also pointed out the hypocrisy in the verdict’s approach to the damaged mosque. Instead of calling for the mosque’s reconstruction, the judgment offered a 5-acre plot of land to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque. In his view, this decision was a “great travesty of justice” as it failed to restore the balance of secularism and justice.
A Silver Lining: The Places of Worship Act
Despite his critiques, Justice Nariman acknowledged that the Ayodhya judgment had a “silver lining” in the form of the court’s affirmation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. This Act, which aims to maintain the status quo of religious places of worship in India, was upheld by the Supreme Court in its verdict. Justice Nariman expressed concern over the growing trend of filing suits to reclaim Hindu temples under Muslim religious structures, warning that such claims could lead to communal disharmony across the country.
To address this issue, he urged courts to apply the five pages of observations in the Ayodhya judgment regarding the Places of Worship Act, as it serves as a binding declaration on the matter.
“Today we find hydra heads popping all over the Country. We find suits after suits not only against mosques but also against Dargahs. All this, according to me could lead to communal disharmony. The only way to scorch and cauterize all this is by applying these 5 pages in this very judgement and having it read out in every district court and High Court. Because these 5 pages are a declaration by the Supreme Court which binds each of them.”
he said, urging the judiciary to safeguard secularism.
Conclusion: Secularism Must Prevail
Justice Nariman concluded his lecture with a poignant reflection on India’s constitutional philosophy. Drawing from the words of Justice Chinnapa Reddy in the case of Biju Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, he emphasized, “Our Philosophy preaches tolerance, Our Constitution practices tolerance, let us not dilute it.” His call to uphold secularism as a fundamental principle of the Indian Constitution was clear: India’s legal and political systems must continue to safeguard the religious neutrality and equality enshrined in the Constitution, even in the face of complex, controversial cases like the Babri Masjid dispute.
Justice Nariman’s critique of the Ayodhya judgment and his call for a deeper commitment to secularism resonate as a powerful reminder of the foundational values that must guide India’s legal system, ensuring justice and equality for all citizens, regardless of their religion.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE