•Retired Justice Chandrahoud’s remarks contradict the 2019 Supreme Court ruling on the Ayodhya championship dispute
•The former judge also defended the investigation of the Gyanvapi mosque, claiming that Hindus worshiped there for centuries. It also supports the court’s position on Jamu and Kashmir
New Delhi: Contrary to the 2019 Supreme Court Ayodhya judgment, former Chief Justice of India (CJI) dy chandrachud has spawned a new controversy claiming that “the Babri Masjid (in the 16th century) was a fundamental act of inhibition”.
Retired Justice Chandrachud was a member of five benches led by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi, who gave Green in November 2019 Signal Build the Ram Temple in a controversial location in Ayodhya.
At the time, the court allowed the construction of RAM temples on the disputed sites, but stressed that the results of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) investigation could not be provided that the Babri Masjid was built after the demolition of the previously existing structure.
Substitute Hero: “Ownership must be determined based on the legal principles and the standards of evidence adopted by the government’s civil trial.”
However, in an interview with journalist Sreenivasan Jain’s Newslaundry on Wednesday, Mr Chandrachud pointed out archaeological evidence, but Acnowed Acnowed raised its legal restrictions.
“There is enough evidence in archaeological excavations. Now, the value of evidence in the archaeological excavations is a separate question,” he said. “What I want to say is that this is evidence in the form of archaeological reports.”
The controversial response from the former CJI was a question posed to Jain, pointing out that the dispute in the inner courtyard was partly due to the Hindus “perpetrated illegal acts such as blasphemy and causing interference.”
He believes that Muslims who did not challenge the outer courtyard saw their lack of resistance in the verdict. “The fact that when what Hindus do is actually compared to Muslims, you don’t fight, is actually a trade-off for Muslims,” Jain said.
Mr Chandrahud replied: “When you say it was a Hindu blasphemy, how can the basic act of blasphemy be built up – the erection of the mosque. Have you forgotten everything that happened? We have forgotten what happened in history?”
The former CJI mentioned the conclusion of ASI that the 12th century Hinduism-primitive structures existed under the mosque. He called it evidence of “what happened in history”, accusing commentators of “selective historical perspectives” and ignoring inconvenient facts.
He said, “So, how can you close your eyes?
However, when asked whether such a history could justify the demolition of the mosque in 1992, Mr. Chandrahoud rejected the idea.
“It is not at all. The Supreme Court’s judgment applies the conventional criteria for determining adverse property and is based on evidence and regular digits that we have applied and concluded.”
“I dare say that the judgment is based on faith rather than evidence is a criticism, or that those who have not read the judgment yet.”
Contrary to what Mr Chandrachud told NewslaundryThe Supreme Court in its ruling is that the report of ASI cannot establish an absolute rule of ownership alone.
The judgment points out that there is a “century gap” between the structures of mosques in the 12th and 16th century, “no evidence … related to the human historical process between the 12th and 12th centuries” or “whether the structure of the pre-architecture structures in which the mosques were constructed was demolished.”
Mr Chandrachud also settled another controversial case – the Gyanvapi Mosque dispute. He said that despite the Places of Worship Act, why the Supreme Court allowed an investigation there, he said the religious characteristics of the site were not resolved.
“Hindu worships the cellar in the cellar of the mosque,” he said, even though Muslims have been questioning it, even if Muslims have been challenging it.
Regarding Jamu and Kashmir, Mr Chandrahud defended the government’s reorganization of the heroic state, stressing that “security considerations” meant that the authorities had to “appeal to the national interests”.
When asked about his post-character role, he said he did not believe in the strict restrictions on Jewish government positions. “I disagree with the idea of the doctrine of what a retired judge should or should not do.
Posted in Dawn on September 26, 2025
