When a retired judge reinterprets judgment
text_fields
The unequivocal statement made by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud that the construction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was a “fundamental act of desecration” and that the mosque’s construction involved the demolition of an earlier structure is shocking. In an interview with newslaundry.com the other day, Chandrachud, who was a member of the five-Judge Constitution Bench that delivered the verdict in the Babri case, explained that there is archaeological evidence that Hindus worshipped there before the mosque was built, and that the verdict was based on evidence rather than faith. Despite prominent journalist Sreenivasan Jain, who interviewed him, pointing out that the Supreme Court verdict itself had stated there was no archaeological evidence of a structure being demolished before the construction of the Babri Masjid, he reiterated his stance that the building of the mosque was a “fundamental act of desecration.” Although the Places of Worship Act, 1991 prohibits changes to the religious character of places of worship, Chandrachud opened a Pandora's box of controversies by allowing the survey of the Gyanvapi mosque and he sought to justify his action under the cover of a false narrative. He claimed that “Hindus have been worshipping in the vault of the Gyanvapi mosque for ages". After decades of legal battle, in November 2019, a five-judge bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi handed over 2.77 acres of land of the Babri Masjid for the construction of the Ram temple. The verdict stated that there was no evidence that the mosque was built by demolishing a temple, and that its demolition was an act of illegality. That remaining the fact, Chandrachud’s new claims made after six years contain not only ambiguity but also malice. Last October, he had remarked that the Supreme Court’s Babri Masjid verdict was a “divine revelation”. "Very often we have cases (to adjudicate) but we don't arrive at a solution. Something similar happened during the Ayodhya which was in front of me for three months. I sat before the deity and told him he needs to find a solution" and he claims God found a way. Chandrachud, while serving as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, invited Prime Minister Narendra Modi to his residence to take part in puja rituals. On that day, senior lawyers and civil rights activists pointed out that the Chief Justice by doing so had compromised the impartiality of the judiciary and weakened the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.
As the Sangh Parivar continues its legal and street campaign, claiming that more than 15 mosques, including those in Gyanvapi and Sambhal, are temples, what else is this statement by the former Chief Justice if not an indication to the courts and authorities? If such signals are acted upon, the judgments delivered by the courts of this country are likely to become even more bizarre in the days ahead. It cannot be ruled out that such rhetoric may influence upcoming judgments and decisions. The Sangh Parivar is also laying claim on hundreds of places of worship. Discussions are also being raised about why Chandrachud, who triggered controversies during his tenure as Chief Justice, continues to do so after retirement. He is setting aside law, justice and civic sense to align himself with the new era, or more precisely, it would not be an exaggeration to say that he is sitting outside the court and crafting favorable judgments for the government. This is especially significant in the context of speculation that Chandrachud may be considered for constitutional positions.
This response has reignited the controversy over the impartiality and injustice of the Ayodhya verdict. Legal experts have warned that Justice Chandrachud’s words, which seem to reinterpret a verdict after retirement, will undermine the perception that the judiciary is unbiased. The issue also raises difficult questions about how judges should conduct themselves post retirement and about their continuing judicial responsibility. There is also a growing suspicion that the line between legal reasoning and historical narrative is being blurred. Three of the five judges who delivered the Ayodhya verdict have already taken up different posts. Ranjan Gogoi is now a member of the Rajya Sabha. Nazeer became a governor, and Ashok Bhushan is the chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Bobde, who took a stand that he would not accept any position, is the only one who has refrained from taking up posts. The tendency of former judges to make statements in a manner that could influence courts and authorities is not at all helpful for the country’s judicial system. In general, it is rare for High Court and Supreme Court judges to comment on their judgments, and even rarer for them to revise them. Even when communal forces and their capitalist allies challenge the Constitution, trample on people’s rights, and disturb peace, the nation continues to pin its hopes on the powerful Constitution and its guardians, the judiciary. But if the courts and judges themselves take stances which weaken constitutional values, the consequences will be grave. The impartiality of the judiciary has already been questioned in many crucial judgments. Moreover, it is indisputable that if former judges eager for positions indulge in reinterpretations, the credibility that still remains will also be destroyed.
