Mumbai: The Ayodhya case was decided based on evidence and legal principles, not faith, said former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
Chandrachud also clarified that his remarks describing the “erection of the Babri Masjid as a fundamental act of desecration” had been taken out of context, leading to misinterpretation of his views on the Ayodhya dispute.
“What is happening on social media is that people take one part of an answer and combine it with another, completely removing the context,” Chandrachud said at the India Today Conclave in Mumbai on Thursday while addressing criticism.
Highlighting the Supreme Court judgment on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case, he noted that most people have not read the full verdict yet express opinions on social media.
“The judgment was 1,045 pages long because the case record spanned over 30,000 pages. Most critics haven’t read the judgment. It’s easy to post opinions online without reviewing the entire document,” he said.
“We must not forget historical facts—they were part of the evidence considered in the case,” he added.
Justice Chandrachud was part of the five-judge bench that paved the way for constructing a Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
The former CJI also observed that discussions on judicial independence on social media have become overly binary, with judges often being labeled based on selective perceptions.
“Unless a judge decides every case according to a netizen’s ideological view, they are not seen as independent. Independence is often equated with ruling against the government, and if a judge decides even one case in favor of the government, they are labeled pro-government,” he said.
He cited examples of rulings against the government, including the electoral bonds case, the Aligarh Muslim University minority status case, and the Aadhaar verdict.
When asked if publicly admitting to prayer before significant rulings violated judicial neutrality, Chandrachud said, “Judges enter a zone of conflict daily. I pray or meditate each morning to bring peace and equilibrium to my work.”
He shared that he recited the Navkar Mantra daily while serving as Chief Justice and visited various religious sites, including a dargah at the Allahabad High Court and a church in Goa.
“My personal beliefs allow space for others to believe differently. Quiet reflection or prayer that helps a judge deliver justice impartially is protected under the Constitution, which guarantees every individual, including judges, the right to belief,” he said.
