The Crossbill News Desk
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud has stirred a new controversy with remarks in an interview to Newslaundry, where he described the “very erection of Babri Masjid (in the 16th century)” as “a fundamental act of desecration.”
His comments appear to run contrary to the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya judgment of November 2019, which he himself was a part of as one of the five judges on the bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi.
The verdict had cleared the way for the construction of the Ram temple at the disputed site but emphasised that there was no evidence to show the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a pre-existing structure.
In its judgment, the court had underlined that while the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) reported the presence of a structure beneath the mosque, there was “a gap of several centuries” between the underlying structure and the construction of the Babri Masjid. It categorically stated that “a finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI.”
The bench observed that no evidence was available to establish whether the pre-existing structure was demolished for the mosque or what transpired in the intervening centuries.
“Title to the land must be decided on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial,” the judgment said.
However, in his interview to journalist Sreenivasan Jain, published on September 24, Chandrachud pointed to the ASI’s findings, saying: “There was adequate evidence from the archaeological excavation. Now, what the evidentiary value of an archaeological excavation is what a separate issue altogether. All that I want to say really is this, there is evidence in the form of an archaeological report.”
His remarks came in response to Jain’s question highlighting critiques of the judgment, including the argument that while Hindus engaged in acts of desecration inside the mosque’s inner courtyard, Muslims had not contested the outer courtyard, and that this weighed against them in the verdict.
Chandrachud countered, “When you said that it was the Hindus who were desecrating the inner courtyard, what about the fundamental act of desecration – the very erection of the Mosque. You forget all that happened? We forget what happened in history?”
Referring to the ASI report, Chandrachud said it acknowledged the presence of a 12th-century Hindu-origin structure beneath the mosque.
He called this an acceptance of “what happened in history” and “evidence,” adding, “.. how can you (then) shut your eyes? So, what is really being done by many of these commentators, that you referred to, is that you have a selective view of history, ignore evidence of what happened beyond a certain period in history and start looking at evidence which is of a more comparative.”
When asked whether even a history of desecration could justify the Babri Masjid’s demolition, he clarified, “Not at all. Supreme Court judgment applies conventional yardsticks of determining the adverse possession and it is on the basis of evidence and conventional yardsticks that we have applied and come to the conclusion. The criticism that the judgment is based on faith and not on evidence is a criticism, I dare say, of those who have not read the judgment.”
His comments appear to run contrary to the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya judgment of November 2019, which he himself was a part of as one of the five judges on the bench led by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi.
The verdict had cleared the way for the construction of the Ram temple at the disputed site but emphasised that there was no evidence to show the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a pre-existing structure.
In its judgment, the court had underlined that while the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) reported the presence of a structure beneath the mosque, there was “a gap of several centuries” between the underlying structure and the construction of the Babri Masjid. It categorically stated that “a finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI.”
The bench observed that no evidence was available to establish whether the pre-existing structure was demolished for the mosque or what transpired in the intervening centuries.
“Title to the land must be decided on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial,” the judgment said.
However, in his interview to journalist Sreenivasan Jain, published on September 24, Chandrachud pointed to the ASI’s findings, saying: “There was adequate evidence from the archaeological excavation. Now, what the evidentiary value of an archaeological excavation is what a separate issue altogether. All that I want to say really is this, there is evidence in the form of an archaeological report.”
His remarks came in response to Jain’s question highlighting critiques of the judgment, including the argument that while Hindus engaged in acts of desecration inside the mosque’s inner courtyard, Muslims had not contested the outer courtyard, and that this weighed against them in the verdict.
Chandrachud countered, “When you said that it was the Hindus who were desecrating the inner courtyard, what about the fundamental act of desecration – the very erection of the Mosque. You forget all that happened? We forget what happened in history?”
Referring to the ASI report, Chandrachud said it acknowledged the presence of a 12th-century Hindu-origin structure beneath the mosque.
He called this an acceptance of “what happened in history” and “evidence,” adding, “.. how can you (then) shut your eyes? So, what is really being done by many of these commentators, that you referred to, is that you have a selective view of history, ignore evidence of what happened beyond a certain period in history and start looking at evidence which is of a more comparative.”
When asked whether even a history of desecration could justify the Babri Masjid’s demolition, he clarified, “Not at all. Supreme Court judgment applies conventional yardsticks of determining the adverse possession and it is on the basis of evidence and conventional yardsticks that we have applied and come to the conclusion. The criticism that the judgment is based on faith and not on evidence is a criticism, I dare say, of those who have not read the judgment.”
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment