Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, reflecting on the 2019 Ayodhya verdict, addressed criticisms, including Justice Rohinton Nariman’s sharp remarks that the decision undermined secularism, calling it a “travesty of justice.” Chandrachud emphasized that judicial decisions are public property open to scrutiny, highlighting democracy’s role in fostering such debates. He acknowledged Nariman’s perspective as a testament to the vibrancy of secularism in India but stressed the judiciary’s collective effort to bring peace through the judgment, which avoided individual authorship to symbolize unity. Chandrachud reaffirmed the court’s dedication to balancing diverse viewpoints in resolving sensitive disputes.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud opened up about the landmark Ayodhya verdict, shedding light on the controversy surrounding it and addressing criticisms. He emphasized that many critics of the 1,000-page judgment had not thoroughly engaged with its contents.
Additionally, he responded to comments made by Justice Rohinton Nariman regarding secularism in the context of the verdict.
Justice Chandrachud’s Stance on the Ayodhya Verdict
Referring to Justice Nariman’s critique, Chandrachud stated,
“I was a party to the decision, so it is not part of my job to defend or criticize the decision. When a judge is a party to a decision, the decision becomes public property and others have to talk about it.”
This statement highlights Chandrachud’s belief in the democratic process and the idea that judicial decisions should foster public dialogue.
Justice Rohinton Nariman’s Criticism of the Verdict
Justice Rohinton Nariman, a former Supreme Court judge, had strong words for the 2019 Ayodhya judgment, labeling it a “travesty of justice” and stating that it failed to uphold the principle of secularism. He remarked,
“I believe that the biggest travesty of justice is that secularism has not been given proper place in these decisions.”
Nariman also expressed disagreement with the reasoning that allowed the disputed land to be handed over, despite the acknowledgment that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was illegal. Reflecting on the broader implications, he said,
“Today we are seeing that new cases of this kind are coming up across the country. We are seeing cases not only against mosques but also against dargahs. I think all this can lead to communal animosity.”
Justice Nariman proposed a proactive approach to address communal tensions, urging,
“The only way to end all this is that these five pages of this judgment should be implemented and it should be read in every district court and high court. In fact, these five pages are a declaration by the Supreme Court which binds all of them.”
Chandrachud’s Response to Justice Nariman’s Views
Responding to Nariman’s critique, Chandrachud remarked,
“Justice Nariman has criticized the decision, so I want to say that his criticism supports the fact that the principles of secularism are alive in India. Because an important principle of secularism is freedom of conscience and what Justice Nariman is doing, he is doing through his conscience.”
He further emphasized the democratic values inherent in such discussions, saying,
“The fact that there are people in our society who put out these views is a reminder that secularism is alive in the country. I do not want to defend my decision because it is clear that I cannot defend my decision. We have presented our point of view through five judges and presented every argument.”
Highlighting the collective nature of the judgment, Chandrachud added,
“For us, it is a collective work of decision-making and we stand by every word printed.”
On differing perceptions regarding secularism, he commented,
“This is a perception and there will be many more perceptions. In such a situation, the courts decide on current issues. They decide on the issues that are before the country. Citizens have the right to criticize, discuss, comment. In a democracy, all this is part of the process of dialogue.”
Chandrachud acknowledged Nariman’s views but noted,
“This is Justice Nariman’s view and everyone respects this view, but certainly this view does not show a monopoly of truth. The final word will be of the Supreme Court.”
The Collective Voice Behind the Ayodhya Judgment
Explaining why the Ayodhya judgment did not ascribe authorship to any individual judge, Chandrachud said,
“The judgment was signed by all the five judges. It’s not that the judgment was not signed by all the judges because the judgment, to be a judgment, has to be signed by every member of the bench. Having said that, we decided when we were in the conference not to ascribe authorship to the judgment.”
He elaborated on the rationale behind this decision, highlighting the sensitive nature of the case:
“This was a dispute which had really threatened to tear apart the social and had a whole history of conflict and bloodshed over several hundred years. We five thought that if we speak without ascribing authorship to the judgment, it will send this message to the society, nation, and beyond that we stand there as one.”
Chandrachud concluded by underscoring the collective effort of the judiciary in resolving the conflict, saying,
“The judgment does not define the identity of one author of the judgment but the identity of the court as a collective entity which made an effort through the judgment to resolve a conflict and to bring a sense of peace and stability to the society.”
Conclusion
The Ayodhya verdict remains a focal point for discussions on secularism and judicial impartiality. Justice Chandrachud’s reflections provide a nuanced perspective on the judicial process, emphasizing the collective responsibility of the bench and the importance of fostering open dialogue in a democratic society.
Justice Nariman’s critique further underscores the need for vigilance in upholding secular principles, ensuring they remain integral to the fabric of Indian democracy.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Justice R.F. Nariman
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Ex-CJI Chandrachud
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Ayodhya Verdict
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
