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.
Cheating made bigger than it actually is: Gukesh
Prague (PTI): World Champion D Gukesh has categorically stated that the problems around cheating in chess are made to be bigger than its existence.
Speaking during a press conference for the Prague International festival, Gukesh said he did not support Vladimir Kramnik, a former world champion who has been infamously levelling charges against quite a few chess players suspecting cheating during online games.
“Obviously, I’m against any kind of unfair or unethical play," “It’s a kind of problem that we have been seeing lately," Gukesh said.
The whole world had stood out for Grandmaster Daniel Naroditsky of America who died at a young age of just 29 years. Naroditsky was a famous content creator in chess who appeared to be very emotional in his last stream just days before his untimely death.
Gukesh is not the only one to join the bandwagon as earlier World number one Magnus Carlsen, FIDE president Arkady Dvorkovich and Indian stars Arjun Erigaisi and Nihal Sarin had also criticised Kramnik as his allegations could not be substantiated with any definite proof.
Speaking about the forthcoming Candidates tournament, Gukesh said he did not believe in favourites and that he would love to play fellow city-mate R Praggnanandhaa.
Meanwhile in the first round of the super tournament, Gukesh will face Hans Moke Niemann of United States, another player who has fought his way to top level chess. Niemann is a dangerous customer and Gukesh likes to go for complex play which insures a fighting beginning for the World Champion.
The other Indian in the fray, Aravindh Chithambaram will take on Nodirbek Abdusattorov of Uzbekistan, a recent winner of the Tata Steel Masters.
