Justice Govind Mathur on Ayodhya case: ‘Judgment political; based on faith, not title or possession’
Says Apex Court should reopen case to strengthen people’s faith in judicial system
New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Govind Mathur, has sharply criticised the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya-Babri Masjid verdict, saying it does not meet the essential standards of a judicial decision settling rights between parties before a court of law.
Speaking exclusively to Vartha Bharati, Justice Mathur described the judgment as “much more a political solution than the settlement of legal issues.” His strong comments come in the wake of recent remarks by former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who had called the construction of the Babri Masjid a “fundamental act of desecration.”
Justice Mathur said that the Supreme Court, instead of deciding the question of title and possession based on established principles of civil law, had relied on faith and inconclusive archaeological findings.
“The fundamental of civil law is that property rights must be decided on continuous possession and valid title. The court in this matter should have adjudicated the issue pertaining to the title of the disputed site and also the valid possession thereon, but the apex court based its findings on faith and poor archaeological facts, which in my opinion are neither relevant nor conclusive,” he said.
He warned that such reasoning could set a “highly dangerous precedent” for future property disputes, especially those involving sites with historical backgrounds.
Justice Mathur noted that the court’s findings were based “on probabilities and circumstantial archaeological assumptions” rather than conclusive evidence. “This sets a highly dangerous precedent for deciding sensitive issues of title and possession,” he said.
He pointed out that the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs had produced documentary evidence to show possession and use of the mosque over centuries. However, the court, he said, chose to decide the dispute on a “unique principle of better claim” a concept he described as “alien in civil disputes where definite evidence is available.”
Responding to former CJI Chandrachud’s comments that the mosque’s construction was a “fundamental act of desecration,” Justice Mathur said judges must rise above personal belief and faith while deciding matters of law.
“Justice Chandrachud should not have recused from the case because of his personal belief, but should have examined the matter strictly in accordance with law. Every person has his personal opinion, but judges stand on a different pedestal. They are supposed to go by law and not by their personal faith or understanding,” he said.
Justice Mathur’s remarks directly question the balance the Supreme Court tried to achieve in its 2019 verdict which handed over the disputed site for the construction of a Ram temple while acknowledging the illegality of the mosque’s demolition.
In a significant remark that could reignite debate over the finality of the Ayodhya judgment, Justice Mathur said that to strengthen public faith in the judiciary, the Supreme Court must consider reopening the case on an appropriate occasion.
“To strengthen people’s faith in our judicial system, the apex court on some appropriate occasion must reopen this case,” he said.
Justice Mathur’s statement adds weight to the growing chorus of legal voices including that of Professor Dr. Mohan G. Gopal who have questioned the consistency of the 2019 verdict and called for judicial reconsideration in light of Chandrachud’s recent remarks.
His observations once again underline the discomfort within sections of the legal community over how one of India’s most sensitive disputes was legally settled.
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.
Lebanon appoints new representative for talks with Israel, rejects linkage to Iran
Beirut: Lebanon’s has moved to underline its independent position in ongoing regional developments, amid attempts to link the country to the broader conflict involving Iran, the United States and Israel.
President Joseph Aoun, while announcing the appointment of former US ambassador Simon Karam as Lebanon’s representative in talks with Israel, made it clear that Karam would be the sole representative for Lebanon and that there would be no substitute.
The move comes in response to what the Lebanese officials see as efforts by Iran to tie Lebanon’s situation to the wider regional conflict. Iran had indicated that there would be no ceasefire involving the US, Israel and Iran unless it also included a ceasefire in Lebanon.
Some groups, including Hezbollah and its supporters, had expressed support for linking the situations, citing concerns that the Lebanese government has limited leverage in negotiations with Israel. Lebanon is not formally a party to the conflict, and its army is considered weak.
However, others, including Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, have opposed this approach. They view Iran’s stance as an attempt to influence Lebanon’s internal affairs and see it as undermining the country’s sovereignty.
Officials backing the government’s position say the move is aimed at reaffirming Lebanon’s sovereignty and ensuring that decisions about peace and ceasefire within the country are not dictated externally.
They also see it as a safeguard, so that any breakdown in talks between the US, Israel and Iran does not automatically lead to renewed conflict in Lebanon.
