Justice Chandrachud's Comments Could Be Ground To File Curative Petition Against Ayodhya Judgment : Professor Mohan Gopal

Professor Dr.Mohan G Gopal said that the recent remarks by former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on the Ayodhya Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute may provide sufficient grounds to file a curative petition before the Supreme Court challenging the verdict.

Prof. Gopal opined that Justice Chandrachud's observation - that the very construction of the Babri Masjid was a "fundamental act of desecration" - was at odds with the 2019 judgment, which found no evidence of destroying a temple to construct the mosque.

The 2019 judgment, delivered by a Bench of then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, allowed the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site to Hindu parties while holding that Muslims had failed to establish exclusive possession. The ruling also recorded that there was no proof that the mosque had been built over a demolished temple. Justice Chandrachud is widely believed to have authored the judgment.

Prof. Gopal said that such inconsistency between the judgment and Justice Chandrachud's later remarks had the potential to undermine confidence in the decision.

“The ultimate responsibility of a court is to deliver judgments that inspire trust. Justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done, especially by those who lose the case. In my personal opinion, the Ayodhya verdict was wrongly decided. The question now is whether, we should work together to file a curative petition, in the light of what Justice Chandrachud has said. Maybe we should. Let us see what follows,” he said.

He was responding to a query raised by Advocate and IUML MP Haris Beeran at the CH Mohammed Koya National Seminar at the University of Calicut.

He further described the judgment as “contrived” and “unreasoned. "The addendum to the judgment was pure theocracy. It was an unsigned addendum. The whole judgment is suspect. "

"I would say to judges, please be transparent about your ideology when you are on the bench," Professor Gopal said. In this context, he recalled that Professor Upendra Baxi had lauded Justice Chinnappa Reddy for openly saying that he was a Marxist. He added that in the EWS matter, Justices UU Lalit and S Ravindra Bhat, during the hearing, were very transparent in expressing their reservations about the petitioners' arguments; however, they later found merit in the arguments and struck down the EWS quota. "All we want from judges - we have judges with all kinds of ideologies, that is inevitable. All we want is sincerity and honesty, and transparency."

If Justice Chandrachud had strong beliefs about the Ayodhya issue, then he should have recused himself from the matter saying he can't take an objective view on this matter because he believed that the construction of Babri Masjid is a desecration, Prof.Gopal said.

"So ultimately, what we are raising is a question of integrity. Did Justice Chandrachud, who is a good friend of mine and a remarkable jurist, have the necessary judicial integrity of being transparent about these things?" he commented.

 Prof. Gopal said that the Ayodhya judgment stands “vitiated” now in view of Justice Chandrachud's comments. According to him, a curative petition would be an opportunity to mould public opinion and educate them as to what really happened.

“Let us find out what he (Justice Chandrachud) said and let us work on a curative petition and demand that whole matter be reheard. It is vitiated now. This is the kind of reaction through which we can mould public opinion. Let us turn Justice Chandrachud's remarks into an opportunity to convince people of what really happened in that case and hopefully even approach the Court to get a rehearing of the whole case", he said.