New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has stirred a major controversy with his remarks on the Ayodhya dispute, stating that the very erection of the Babri Masjid was a “fundamental act of desecration.” The observation came during an interview with Newslaundry journalist Sreenivasan Jain, excerpts of which were shared on social media.
Responding to a question on whether Hindu parties were accountable for acts of desecration, such as the placing of idols inside the mosque in December 1949, Chandrachud said the construction of the mosque itself was an act of desecration. Jain pointed out that this remark appeared to contradict the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya judgment, which had noted that there was no evidence to conclude that the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a Hindu temple, Live Law reports.
When asked about the argument that Hindus had desecrated the inner courtyard while Muslims had not contested the outer courtyard, Chandrachud countered by asking, “What about the fundamental act of desecration, the very erection of the Mosque? You forget all that happened? Do we forget what happened in history?”
He said the Court had found archaeological evidence that there was a temple beneath the mosque, which was destroyed to build it. “Once you accept that that happened in history, and we had evidence in the form of archaeological evidence, how can you shut your eyes?” he asked. He added that critics of the judgment take a selective view of history. “People who criticise the judgment want to ignore the fundamental history of the mosque and then look at the more comparative history and selective history in support of what they postulate,” he said.
Jain reminded him that the judgment itself had said there was no evidence that the underlying structure was demolished to construct the mosque and that the ASI report had pointed to a gap of nearly 400 years between the 12th-century structure and the 16thcentury mosque. To this, Chandrachud insisted that there was “adequate evidence from the archaeological excavation,” though he conceded that the evidentiary value of such excavation was another matter.
He maintained that critics who said the judgment was based on faith and not evidence had not read it properly. “Second, what you are saying is that the Court could have partitioned the land and given one side one part and the other side another part, well if people could live in peace, there was no reason for judicial statesmanship,” he added.
When asked if any history of desecration of the underlying structure could justify the demolition of the mosque, Chandrachud firmly replied, “Not at all.” He said the Supreme Court had applied “conventional yardsticks of determining the adverse possession” and reached its conclusions on that basis.
The 2019 Ayodhya judgment, however, had specifically noted the limitations of the ASI report. While the report suggested the existence of a 12th-century structure of Hindu religious origin beneath the mosque, it did not provide reasons for its destruction or confirm that it was demolished for the mosque’s construction. The Court observed that there was a gap of about four centuries between the two structures, making it possible that the earlier structure was naturally destroyed. The report also did not conclude that remnants of the pre-existing structure were used to build the mosque.
The judgment further pointed out that title to the land could not be decided on the basis of archaeological findings alone. It said: “A finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI. Between the twelfth century to which the underlying structure is dated and the construction of the mosque in the sixteenth century, there is an intervening period of four centuries. No evidence has been placed on the record in relation to the course of human history between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries. No evidence is available in a case of this antiquity on (i) the cause of destruction of the underlying structure; and (ii) whether the pre-existing structure was demolished for the construction of the mosque. Title to the land must be decided on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial.”
Thus, while the former CJI has now described the mosque’s erection as an act of desecration, the Supreme Court’s judgment widely known to have been authored by him had explicitly stated that no evidence was found to prove that the mosque was built by demolishing a temple.
