'Very Erection Of Babri Masjid Was A Fundamental Act Of Desecration':https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/very-erection-of-babri-masjid-was-a-fundamental-act-of-desecration-ex-cji-dy-chandrachud-contradicts-ayodhya-judgment-finding-305100 Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud Contradicts Ayodhya Judgment Finding Gursimran Kaur Bakshi 25 Sept 2025 the former CJI said: "There was adequate evidence from the archaeological excavation. Now, what the evidentiary value of an archaeological excavation is what a separate issue altogether. All that I want to say really is this, there is evidence in the form of an archaeological report."
SSen on Whatsapp
He followed a clear trajectory.
Before becoming the CJI was known for his bold liberal stands.
Had called the passing of the Aadhaar Act as a "moneybill" to bypass the RS a "travesty". (In retrospect, he had very well known that he was passing a minority judgement having little significance other than brushing up his image further.)
Then came the shocker: the Ayodhya judgement. Even there he interjected some positive elements. Asserted that the "findings" of ASI are far from any conclusive proof and for that matter there was no conclusive proof.
As the CJI Would mix grossly bad judgements with some good ones:
Teesta Setalvad and Rahul Gandhi. Very good optics. In the case of Mahua Moitra -- nothing of that sort.
Ayodhya to Gyanvapi: Factchecking Justice Chandrachud https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBytVYYZqOw
newslaundry From YT transcript.. as the folks at News Laundry rightly pointed out to me, for all the media appearances he's done, he's not really
been adequately questioned on the very consequential and controversial verdicts. Justice Chandraud first said he would only stick to what was said in the verdicts but then ended up at times citing justifications, inflammatory
justifications even that found no mention in the judgments and were a
marked departure from the facts. .. his
response to my question on why the
Aayodhya judgment went against the
Muslims despite the court accepting that
the Hindus were guilty of acts of
desecration. What about the fundamental
act of desecration, the very erection of
the mosque? We forget all that happened.
We forget that happened in history. Now
once we accept that that happened in
history and we had evidence in the form
of archaeological evidence, how can you
shut your eyes? I thought the the
judgment found that there was no
evidence that the underlying structure
was necessarily demolished to build the
mosque because there was a gap of
several centuries between the between
the underlying structure and the mosque
and there could have been any number of
reasons....
As many are asking, does this not go
against the central premise as claimed
by the authors of the Aayodha judgment
that their ruling was based on evidence,
not majoritarianism?
Not only that, as several commenters
have noted, Justice Chandraud completely
ignored my counter question that the
verdict which he co-rote clearly records
the absence of proof that the mosque was
built by demolishing or desecrating a
temple. In fact, it's worth mentioning
the precise quote from the verdict.
While the ASI report has found the
existence of ruins of a pre-existing
structure, the report does not provide
the reason for the destruction of the
pre-existing structure and whether the
earlier structure was demolished for the
purpose of the construction of the
mosque. No evidence is available to
explain what transpired in the course of
the intervening period of nearly four
centuries between the date of the
underlying structure and the
construction of the mosque. Revealing
moment number two came as I pushed him
on why the Supreme Court bench headed by
him allowed an investigation into the
Ganwapi mosque in Banaras despite the
law banning any change in the character
of religious structures. Here again,
Justice Chandraud chose to justify his
decision by straying away from the legal
record by taking the incorrect and
partisan view that it is undisputed that
prayers have always taken place inside
the mosque's basement. You have now 17
suits filed all over the country. Sambul
has erupted in violence. So that's the
first sort of concern that just by
simply saying you can investigate the
character the floodgates have been
opened.
Now undoubtedly through the ages
worship has taken place in the cellar
also of the Ganbapi mosque.
Yes, that is undisputed.
The Muslim side has always permitted
worship in the cellar of the mosque.
[Music]
Yes, we had to take the unusual step of
pausing the interview of a former Chief
Justice of India, no less, to carry a
fact check to point out that the
caretakers of the mosque have
consistently disputed the claim of
worship in the cellar, saying it's a
false narrative. They've argued this in
the public domain. They've argued this
in the courts including the Supreme
Court. Something Justice Chandrchud is
bound to be aware of and yet he kept
repeating it several times. The fact
that there's worship to Hindu idols in
the cellar is also undisputed. So what
would you like us to do? Selectively
shut your eyes to the fact that there is
Hindu worship which is going on in a
part of the structure and only go by the
structure of the mosque. Sorry. As these
words gain online traction, it has only
intensified or some might even say
settled the ongoing debate around the
legacy of Justice Chandra, upholder of
liberal constitutional values as he
himself often professes or as Prattabanu
Ma put it in one of his columns, a chief
justice of India, tailorade for the age
of Modi. Journalism at News Laundry is
powered by the public because when the
public pays, the public is served. Visit
news.com/subscription
and pick a payment plan of your choice.
Pay to keep news free and independent.
Your future and indeed the future of
democracy depends on
Arguably his grotesquely ugliest judgement was his pronouncement that it's kosher for the Parliament to assume the powers exclusively reserved for a state legislature to maintain the desired power balance and the federal element in the Indian Constitution if the Union Government manages to dismiss the state legislature.
Then he invited the largest litigant in his Court -- the Prime Minister of India -- to religious function at home to give him an extra edge in the coming Maharashtra.
As the Master of the Roster, he kept assigning the sensitive cases to handpicked nastiest available at that point of time.
Immediately after retirement he'd go ahead to set a new record by proclaiming that the Ayodhya judgement had sought for divine endorsement.