Ayodhya Verdict: Justice Chandrachud’s Remarks Sparked Debate Over Law, Faith, and National Ethos

Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, widely seen as author of the Ayodhya Judgment on November 9, 2019, on Ranjan Gogoi Bench of the Supreme Court, had once famously said that he prayed to Deity for solution to Ayodhya dispute. Perhaps, his recent pronouncements seem to give it all away, whether Constitution was really applied, or was it some divine intervention that set the tone and tenor for adjudication of Babri Masjid case.

Decoding his own judgment in a spate of interviews to YouTube channels, Justice Chandrachud is clearly, explicitly explaining what was hinted at but left unsaid in as many words in the Supreme Court verdict. As a result, what is listed and discussed in the Ayodhya Judgment and what conclusions arrived at, does not seem to be a logical outcome at all.

National Ethos At Stake

For instance, Babri Masjid Demolition on December 6, 1992, is acknowledged as a vandal act, but the land is not only given over to those favouring Demolition, but Article 142 is invoked to give direction to the Central Government to proceed to form a Trust for Temple construction.

Now, this is outside the remit of the case before the Supreme Court, primarily relating to title dispute. So much so, no party to the dispute had made such a prayer to the Apex Court. In fact, what was mandated in the Indian Evidence Act, reconstruction of the Babri Masjid, pending disposal of the case, was not honoured.

What is more, those responsible for the criminal, morally reprehensible and abominable vandal act of Demolition of the House of Prayer that is repugnant to the nationally-cherished cultural and civilizational ethos, were let off Scott free, unpunished, without as much as indictment, honourably acquitted, saying there was no evidence of conspiracy at all.

Of the five suites before the Apex Court, only two Suits were decreed. One is Suit No 4 by the Uttar Pradesh Central Sunni Waqf Board and the other is Suit No 5 by God Himself, Bhagwan Shri Ram, accorded recognition as juristic person, through his next friend, Devki Nandan Agarwal, former Judge of the Allahabad High Court.

Solemn assurances to the Supreme Court were given that the Mosque will not be harmed and it would be only token Kar Seva on December 6, 1992. But what followed is complete destruction of a House of Prayer. This constituted egregious violation of law and, worse, such outrageous disrespect and disregard to the highest court of the land that went unheard and unpunished.

The one-day jail and fine imposed on former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh was in a different case and not for violation of the solemn assurance to the Supreme Court that no harm will come to Babri Masjid.

Endorsing Sangh Narrative

Recent remarks in interviews to YouTube channels of Justice Chandrachud bear striking resemblance to Sangh Parivar narrative. The core thesis, endorsed by Justice Chandrachud, is: There was a Temple, which was demolished and on its ruins came up the Mosque; this site is Lord Ram birthplace, where a Temple must be constructed; Mosque cannot come up anywhere within the Panch-Koshi Parikrama and Mosque can be built only outside Ayodhya; a long Temple Movement culminated in the Demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992; Makeshift Temple establishes only Grand Ram Temple has to be built, with no scope for arguments for Mosque coming up again.

Turning archaeological evidence on its head, as it were, in a TV channel interview to Srinivasan Jain for Newslaundry, Justice Chandrachud says, “What about the fundamental act of desecration, where you erect the Mosque? You forget all that happened? You forget that happened in history? Now once you accept what happened in history and we have evidence in the form of archaeological evidence, how can you shut your eyes?”

The underlying thought in this line of argument is if Mosque can be built by demolishing the Temple, what is wrong if Temple is built by demolishing Mosque? This is showcasing Babri Masjid Demolition as an act of vengeance, which is not ethical, moral, legal or Constitutional.

Archaeological evidence is clear that some Hindu structure, not necessarily Temple, underlying the Mosque, was not demolished to build Babri Masjid. Between the crumbling of the Hindu structure — for whatever reason — and the building of Mosque has an intervening period of 400 years. There is no linkage whatsoever, between the two events.

Shifting Goalpost

Historically, proponents of Ram Janmasthan staked claim to a spot in the outer courtyard; never ever in the inner-courtyard of Babri Masjid. As a result, subsequently the Ram Chabutra was constructed in the outer-courtyard of Babri Masjid, widely acknowledged as the Ram Janmasthan. All along, the contestation for the Janmasthan and the demands for construction of Temple centered on Ram Chabutra in the outer-courtyard and never in the inner-courtyard of the Babri Masjid.

This was since 1886 up to 1949. In 1949, the narrative was sought to be changed, by shifting shifting the goalpost in an brazen manner. Idols were surreptitiously placed under the Central Dome of Babri Masjid in the intervening night of December 22-23, 1949. That is when the entire narrative had undergone a paradigm shift, under orders from the Indian Judiciary. Instead of treating it as criminal trespass and ordering removal of the Idols surreptitiously placed there, Faizabad District Magistrate K K Nair locked the Mosque, barred Muslims from offering prayers and made out a case for Hindus.

All judicial pronouncements from then onwards, till the Supreme Court final verdict on November 9, 2019, disposing of the case in favour of Hindus, has been consistent and part of a pattern.

Adverse Possession

There is a law of Adverse Possession. If a party to dispute fails to raise objection within a period of 12 years of a rival party usurping the land, then the first party loses its legal claim to the land. After the Idols were surreptitiously placed in the Mosque on December 22-23, 1949, before the expiry of 12-year period, in 1961, the Uttar Pradesh Central Sunni Waqf Board filed a case. There is no way the Muslims are affected by the Law of Adverse Possession, as claimed by Justice
Chandrachud in his recent TV interview.

The Ayodhya Judgment held the Muslims could not establish their continuous control of the inner-courtyard of Babri Masjid prior to 1857. Conceding the point for an argument’s sake, implied in it is the presumption of complete control of the Muslims over the inner-courtyard since 1857, till December 22-23, 1949, when Idols were smuggled in, which is ethically, morally and legally an act of desecration.

The last Friday Prayers were offered on December 16, 1949. Clearly the Supreme Court held that from 1857 to 1949, for 98-long years, Muslims enjoyed undisputed ownership of the inner-courtyard. How come, then, a desecration on the intervening night of December 22-23, 1949, became the benchmark for basing the entire Ayodhya Judgment on it?

In a seeming distortion of law, Justice Chandrachud says, “If you are applying to a well-settled yardstick, of what constitutes Adverse Possession, that possession has to be open, it has to be continuous, it has to be acknowledged….” The verdict itself points out that the Hindus controlled the outer courtyard but the Muslims could not establish that they had complete control over the inner-courtyard before 1857. Implicit in it is the quiet acknowledgement that Muslims were in full control of the inner-courtyard from 1857 to the intervening night of December 22-23, 1949, when surreptitiously the Idols were quietly smuggled inside the Central Dome of the Babri Masjid.

Celebrations Give Away

The celebration by the judges in the adjudication of the Babri Masjid case says it all, more than anything else. Does the Constitution really matter? That is the question the celebrations raise.