Ayodhya verdict back in debate: Chandrachud’s remark sparks fresh questions
_vb_51.jpeg)
New Delhi: The Ayodhya verdict of 2019, which was once seen as having settled one of the country’s most prolonged disputes, is again in the spotlight. A remark by former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has triggered a fresh round of debate on the integrity of the judgment and the processes that led to it. Former judges, legal scholars and political voices are now openly questioning whether the final word has really been spoken on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case.
At the centre of this renewed controversy is Justice Chandrachud’s description of the Babri Masjid’s construction as a “fundamental act of desecration.” The remark is striking because, in the 2019 judgment itself which Chandrachud is widely believed to have authored the five-judge Bench had held that there was no evidence to prove the mosque had been built after demolishing a temple. The ruling had allowed the land to be handed over for the construction of a Ram temple while noting that Muslims had failed to prove exclusive possession, but it stopped short of endorsing any claim of demolition.
This contrast between what the judgment recorded and what Justice Chandrachud has now said is what makes the debate unavoidable.
Even before Chandrachud’s recent words, former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Govind Mathur while speaking in Mangaluru at the BV Kakkilaya Memorial Lecture, had drawn attention to a key aspect of the case. Speaking weeks ago, he had underlined that the Ayodhya dispute was essentially a civil suit. Unlike writ petitions, which are summary proceedings based on affidavits, civil suits require the adjudication of every single issue raised.
In his view, this never really happened. Justice Mathur pointed out that the Allahabad High Court, in its 2010 verdict, was candid enough to admit that it was not deciding all issues and was merely trying to curtail the dispute with the material available. But once the case went up to the Supreme Court, the main argument was that every issue of title must be adjudicated in a civil suit of this nature.
According to Justice Mathur, the Supreme Court avoided this core requirement and instead moved towards what he called a resolution based on emotions. His blunt assessment was that the top court had “resolved the dispute without touching the actual dispute.”
Now, Professor Dr. Mohan G. Gopal, noted academic and former director of the National Judicial Academy, has gone a step further. Speaking at the CH Mohammed Koya National Seminar at the University of Calicut, he suggested that Justice Chandrachud’s own words may provide sufficient grounds to seek a curative petition before the Supreme Court.
For Prof. Gopal, the contradiction is glaring: the same judge who had signed off on a judgment that specifically noted the absence of proof of demolition now speaks of the mosque’s construction as desecration. To him, this inconsistency does not merely weaken the judgment it risks eroding public trust in the judiciary itself.
“The ultimate responsibility of a court is to deliver judgments that inspire trust,” he said. “Justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done, especially by those who lose the case.” In his personal opinion, he added, the Ayodhya verdict was “wrongly decided.”
Describing the judgment as “contrived” and “unreasoned,” Prof. Gopal also questioned the unsigned addendum that accompanied the ruling, calling it “pure theocracy.” He stressed that transparency in ideology was essential in the judiciary, pointing out that Justice Chinnappa Reddy had once openly declared himself a Marxist, and that even in recent cases like the EWS quota, judges had displayed candour about their initial doubts before arriving at their final conclusions.
His suggestion is clear: if Justice Chandrachud held such a belief about the Babri Masjid’s construction, he should have recused himself from the case. Otherwise, it raises questions about integrity and transparency on the bench.
Prof. Gopal believes that the Ayodhya judgment now stands “vitiated” by the former Chief Justice’s subsequent remarks. He urged that this be used as an opportunity to mould public opinion and possibly demand a rehearing of the entire case through a curative petition. “Let us turn Justice Chandrachud’s remarks into an opportunity to convince people of what really happened in that case and hopefully even approach the Court to get a rehearing,” he said.
For years, the 2019 verdict was treated as the final chapter in the Ayodhya dispute. Its 1,085 pages were rarely read in full; most relied on selected passages. But today, two developments Justice Mathur’s reminder that civil suits require full adjudication of issues, and Prof. Gopal’s charge that the judgment was internally inconsistent have ensured that the case is again part of the national conversation.
The debate goes beyond the legal technicalities. At stake is a larger concern about judicial integrity, transparency of ideology, and the kind of reasoning that underpins verdicts in cases of such historic and communal sensitivity.
That is why the Ayodhya judgment five years after being delivered is once again the talk of the town.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
BJP to resolve decades-old Gorkha issue within 6 months of forming govt in Bengal: Shah
Kurseong (WB) (PTI): Seeking to strike an emotional chord with the politically crucial hill electorate, Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Tuesday promised that the BJP would resolve the decades-old Gorkha issue within six months if the BJP comes to power in West Bengal.
He said no party other than the BJP could find a solution acceptable to the Gorkhas.
Addressing a rally at Kurseong in Darjeeling district, Shah said the BJP understands the concerns and aspirations of the Gorkhas and would work towards a settlement on their terms.
"Within six months of the BJP forming the government in West Bengal, every Gorkha will have a smile on his face. We will find such a solution to the Gorkha issue that Gorkhas can live in peace," he said.
The Gorkha issue refers to the century-old demand for a separate state in the Gorkha-majority hill districts of north Bengal, although Shah did not utter the words 'Gorkhaland' or 'statehood' in his speech.
Instead, echoing the BJP's long-standing promise of a "permanent political solution" to the hill question, Shah said the issue would be resolved in accordance with the aspirations of the Gorkhas.
ALSO READ: APCR fact-finding team reports gaps between records, public narrative in Nashik TCS case
"I am leaving today after promising you that as soon as the BJP government is formed, the decades-old Gorkha issue will be resolved according to the Gorkhas' terms," he said.
The BJP, which has won the Darjeeling Lok Sabha seat in every election since 2009, has consistently promised a permanent political solution to the hill issue without committing itself to a separate state.
The home minister accused the Mamata Banerjee government of refusing to engage with efforts to resolve the issue and said that after becoming home minister, he had convened three meetings on the matter.
"After becoming home minister, I convened three major meetings to resolve the Gorkha issue, but not even once did a representative from Mamata's side attend," Shah said.
"Mamata Didi, we are not dependent on you for a solution to the Gorkha issue. We have appointed an interlocutor who is preparing a report by engaging with Gorkha organisations here and officials of the West Bengal government," he added.
Claiming that the BJP alone understands the concerns of the hill residents, Shah said, "We understand you and your problems. No one except the BJP can resolve the Gorkha issue."
The home minister alleged that the Congress and the TMC had betrayed the people of the hills for decades.
"The Congress and the TMC have done injustice not only to Darjeeling but also to our patriotic Gorkha brothers," he said.
Seeking to broaden the BJP's pitch beyond the Gorkha issue, Shah sought to portray the election as a battle to free north Bengal and the hills from what he called years of neglect and injustice under the TMC rule.
"This election is to free the entire West Bengal from TMC's crimes. In a way, it is an election to gain freedom from the injustice happening for decades in north Bengal and Darjeeling," he said.
Referring to the Sandeshkhali controversy, Shah said, "The whole of West Bengal has decided that it is time for Didi to step down. This election is about protecting our sisters across the state. The Sandeshkhali incident has brought shame to the state."
The BJP leader told the gathering that while Darjeeling had repeatedly backed the BJP, the party needed support from the rest of West Bengal this time.
"For three elections, Darjeeling has been voting for the BJP anyway, but the rest of West Bengal did not provide as much support. But this time, the whole of West Bengal has made up its mind that it's time to oust Didi," he said.
Shah also raised the issue of Gorkhas' names being allegedly deleted from the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
"The names of some Gorkhas were deleted during SIR. Once the BJP government is formed in West Bengal, all such names will be included in the electoral rolls again," he said.
He further alleged that hundreds of false cases had been slapped on Gorkha activists and promised that these would be withdrawn if the BJP formed the government.
"They have filed hundreds of false cases against our Gorkha brothers and sisters. The results will come out on May 4, and a BJP government will be formed on May 5. Before July 31, the BJP government in West Bengal will withdraw all cases against Gorkha brothers and sisters," Shah said.
The home minister also attacked the Mamata Banerjee government over budgetary allocations for the tribals.
"For tribal development, for Adivasis, for the hills, and for north Bengal, the Mamata government's total budget is Rs 2,000 crore. But for Muslims and madrasas, the Mamata government's budget is Rs 5,800 crore. This injustice will not last much longer," he said.
The demand for Gorkhaland and greater political autonomy for the Darjeeling hills has remained one of the most enduring and emotive political issues in north Bengal, often shaping electoral outcomes in the region.
Successive agitations -- from the Subhash Ghising-led GNLF movement in the 1980s to the later stir spearheaded by Bimal Gurung and the GJM, have repeatedly convulsed the hills.
Yet, despite the BJP's rise in Darjeeling and its continued dominance in the Lok Sabha seat since 2009, the party has so far stopped short of endorsing a separate state as it would have an adverse impact on south Bengal, preferring instead to speak of a "permanent political solution".
