On Babri and Gyanvapi mosque, ex-CJI Chandrachud kicks up a storm

Former chief justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has been on an interview-giving spree over the past few days. In the course of these interviews, he has been answering questions on the judiciary as well as his own experience as a judge.

Most of these interviews were conducted deferentially and the former CJI was rarely asked uncomfortable questions. However, on Newslaundry's 'Newsminute', Sreenivasan Jain managed to draw him out into admitting that it was he who had invited PM Narendra Modi to visit his home and do an aarti together when he was still CJI. He defended this by saying that it was rather common, and reflected the respect high constitutional functionaries had for each other.

What has, however, stirred a controversy is his defence of some of his more controversial judgments, including the Ayodhya verdict, the judgment allowing worship by Hindus and a survey to determine the archaeological value of the Gyanvapi mosque, the judgment on Article 370 and the Supreme Court accepting the government’s word that statehood would be restored to the Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu & Kashmir.

In the interview with Jain, Chandrachud insists the Ayodhya verdict was based on evidence, not faith. Asked why the desecration of the Babri Masjid in 1949 by Hindus didn’t go against the Hindu parties, he argued that the mosque’s very erection in 1526 was the “fundamental act of desecration” since it was built by demolishing an existing religious structure.

Jain pointed out that the Ayodhya judgement had itself noted that there was no archaeological evidence to suggest that an earlier structure was demolished to build the mosque. In fact, there is evidence that while there was an underlying structure underneath the Babri mosque, there was a gap of several centuries between the collapse of the earlier structure and the construction of the mosque. The underlying structure, Jain pointed out, could have collapsed for any number of reasons.

The former CJI, however, repeated his claim that the construction of the mosque in the 16th century was the ‘fundamental’ desecration, not the demolition of the Babri mosque in 1992 by Hindus. Jain points out that the Ayodhya judgment had acknowledged the egregious act of violence by Hindus; that the verdict raised concerns because the Supreme Court, after acknowledging that what the Hindus did in 1992 was wrong, still handed over the entire area to the Hindus.

The former CJI claimed that the Muslim parties, which did not have the ‘title’ to the land (neither did the Hindu parties) had also failed to establish they were in ‘continuous and uncontested’ possession of the mosque. He further claimed that records of courts and pleadings proved that the Babri Masjid was always contested but nobody had ever objected to Hindus worshipping in the outer courtyard of the mosque, strengthening their case.

A surprised Jain exclaims that while the Hindus caused disruptions and desecrations and put up obstacles to Muslims, the court appeared to have punished the Muslims for not resorting to unlawful activities, causing disruptions and not creating any fuss. Chandrachud once again contests the statement and refers to the ‘earlier, fundamental act of desecration by Muslims in 1526.

In a newsletter mailed to Newslaundry subscribers, Jain writes, “At the risk of sounding immodest, I think I was able to push — even fact-check — the former top judge in ways he’s rarely been on some of the most consequential verdicts of his career. The result is an interview that is prickly — and revelatory. Take Ayodhya. As I pushed him on why the judgement went against the Muslims despite the court accepting that the Hindus were guilty of acts of desecration, he suddenly went to a dark place — an answer that was all the more provocative in how it blithely ignored the evidence recorded in the verdict itself.”

Jain added a post-script: “I will say this much — very few members of the higher judiciary open themselves up to this level of scrutiny. Even fewer serve tasty vegan snacks, graciously staying back after the cameras have stopped rolling to ensure that our crew got their fill!”

While posting clips from the interview on 25 September, Jain writes, “I ask Justice Chandrachud why he permitted the survey of the Gyanvapi mosque in Benares, despite the law banning any change in the character of religious structures. He said because it is 'undisputed' that prayers have taken place 'through the ages' inside the mosque’s cellar. This is factually untrue. The mosque trust have consistently disputed the claim of prayers in the basement — in the public domain and in court."