Former CJI DY Chandrachud Defends Ayodhya Verdict, Calls It Fact-Based

New Delhi, 13th December 2024: Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud has responded to criticisms surrounding the Ayodhya verdict, asserting that the landmark decision was based solely on facts and thorough evidence. He emphasized that critics often overlook the comprehensive 1,000-page judgment in its entirety.

Speaking at the Times Network Conclave, Chandrachud addressed concerns raised by Justice Rohinton Nariman, who had earlier referred to the Ayodhya judgment as a “mockery of justice.” Chandrachud countered by highlighting the detailed analysis of evidence on which the decision was grounded, reiterating that any claim otherwise would be factually incorrect.

Responding to Nariman’s statement that the verdict did not adequately address secularism, Chandrachud maintained a neutral stance, remarking, “I was a party to the decision, and now it is public property. It is not my place to criticize or defend it further. The judgment speaks for itself.”

He further acknowledged that Justice Nariman’s critical perspective reflects the vitality of India’s secularism. “Freedom of conscience is a cornerstone of secularism, and criticism like this shows that the principle is alive in India,” he said.

Chandrachud affirmed that the five-judge bench, which delivered the historic verdict, collectively stood by every word of the judgment. He noted, “We judges have presented our arguments and reached a unanimous decision. I cannot and will not defend it now because that is not my role anymore.”

In his address, Chandrachud also shed light on the judiciary’s broader role in India. He described the Constitution not just as a political document but as a visionary framework for social transformation, underscoring the judiciary’s responsibility to uphold its principles.

The Ayodhya verdict, delivered in November 2019, awarded the disputed land in Ayodhya to the deity Ram Lalla while allotting alternative land for a mosque to the Sunni Waqf Board, a decision that has since sparked both acclaim and criticism. Chandrachud’s latest remarks seek to underscore the rigorous judicial process behind the contentious ruling.