At a felicitation ceremony on Saturday(27th Oct), CJI DY Chandrachud remarked to the judges of the Bombay High Court that he believes astrological elements may influence the outcomes of certain cases.
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud remarked that “there are some astrological elements in the outcome of certain cases” during an address to the judges of the Bombay High Court at a felicitation event hosted by the Bombay Bar Association (BBA).
Reflecting on his early career as an advocate, CJI Chandrachud shared an anecdote about a sugar factory dispute.
“I appeared before Justice Motai and Justice Jhunjhunwala in a case concerning a sugar dispute. Despite our repeated arguments, the court seemed unfavorable to my case. Just before Diwali, perhaps in 1995 or 1996, Justice Motai called us to his chambers and asked, ‘Would you like to try your luck with another bench?’”
The CJI noted that the matter was eventually reassigned, and the outcome changed.
“In the next term, I succeeded before a different bench. There may be some astrological element in the outcome of cases,” he observed.
Chandrachud also shared that he had chosen to speak without a prepared speech.
“I wondered how I could sum up 40 years of my judicial career, especially since many of my best moments were spent in this Court.”
He described the event as a unique occasion “a day of thanksgiving, reflection, and remembrance.” He expressed gratitude to the judiciary, saying, “I owe everything to this Institution.”
Reflecting on his journey, he acknowledged the influence of past members of the bar and the bench.
“It is a moment of remembrance for those who walked this path before us, setting traditions we have strived to follow.”
In a heartfelt revelation made earlier, the CJI recalled his experience presiding over the Ayodhya dispute. He shared that during the emotionally and legally complex case, he sought divine intervention.
“Some cases present challenges where solutions don’t come easily. This was the situation during the Ayodhya dispute, which occupied me for three months. I sat before the deity and prayed, telling him he needed to show us a way.”
The Supreme Court’s verdict ultimately allowed the construction of the Ram Temple at the disputed site while allocating five acres of land for a mosque, bringing closure to a dispute that spanned over a century.
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.
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.
On November 9, 2019, when the Supreme Court, under the leadership of then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi, delivered a historic judgment. The verdict resolved a century-old conflict by allowing the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya.
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
