'Completely misconstrued': Ex-CJI on praying for solution to Ayodhya case

Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that his remarks about praying to God to help him find a solution to the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute were "completely misconstrued."

In an exclusive interview with ANI, Justice Chandrachud said that in Ayodhya's case, the judgment of the court states whether the law and the Constitution were applied or was some "divine intervention."

"Like everything else on social media, what I said has been misconstrued. Because what you say is then sort of compressed into a small short of 20 seconds. And what you said on a particular occasion is then put forth in 20 seconds as your view, which is not so. Now, I must tell you that when I spoke on that occasion, just before I laid down office, I went to my own village, which is about an hour and a half from Pune.

 

"It's a village called Kanersar, which is predominantly an agricultural community. And I thought I must go to my village. We have an old house built in the 18th century which was there and I thought I must go there and finally meet everyone before I lay down the office. During the course of my conversation, a lot of youngsters asked me, we see you on YouTube. How is it that you maintain an element of calm in the midst of conflict? And I said, well, everybody has their own formula. Everyone has their own approach to life. For me, the time that I spend in prayer and meditation every morning is what ultimately sustains me as a person," the former CJI said.

"Because, of course, I didn't say that you didn't have to apply the law, or the constitution to deciding individual cases. Obviously not. Even Ayodhya. The judgment of the court tells you whether the law and the constitution were applied or was it some divine intervention that was appealed to. So I think what I said on that occasion has been completely misconstrued," Justice Chandrachud said.

"And I say so because what essentially I was saying was and which I repeat is that all judges work in areas of intense conflict throughout their working lives. It may be a dispute between two commercial interests. The standard case, you know, in a commercial court. A dispute between two wings of the family, a spouse or spouses, disputes over child custody, disputes at a higher level between two levels of government, a state government and the central government, and disputes over the sharing of river waters," he added.

He further said that he practices his faith, adding a judge should do justice to every faith that comes before them.

"So what is it that in the midst of this conflict, in the intense social issues that you decide as a judge, that you find your sense of calm? And I don't make no bones about it. I practice my faith. I derive a great deal of comfort and solace from being a person who practices my faith. But what I want to also emphasize is that your ability to do justice in court and in terms of the constitution, and the law does not depend on whether you are an atheist to be truly, to be truly dispassionate," he said.

"A judge does not have to be an atheist. You may be practising, a person of practising faith, but yet to do, you still do justice to every faith, people of all faiths who come before you. And what is ultimately, if you ask yourself this question, whichever faith you're talking about, what does, what do all our faiths teach you about? They teach you about the universality of the human spirit. And if you really look at any faith that people practice, whether, you know, it's my faith, it's somebody else's faith. I respect all faiths," he added.

The former CJI explained the two concepts of being "Dharmic" or being "Adhyatmic" and said that, "There are two different concepts. One is the concept of being dharmic or being adhyatmic. And the other one is of 'dharma nirpekshita' which is that, you know, your ability to be even-handed between people of different faiths. Because as judges, you are trained, you are trained, you are acquire this over a period of time, that you are applying the law to every case which comes before you and the religion of a particular, it doesn't matter."

Earlier in October this year, the former CJI said he had "prayed to God for a solution to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute."

When asked about the Ayodhya verdict, the former CJI said that Ayodhya was an issue which covered a whole history of several hundred years and was an issue, which had threatened to "tear apart the social fabric of the nation."

"And when we decided the case and we ultimately sat in the conference, Chief Justice Gogoi was our Chief Justice at that time, a decision was taken consciously by all the judges together that there shall be no attribution of authorship to the judgment. And the reason for that was we all felt that it's important to send this message across that every one of us, you know, Justice Gogoi, Justice Bobde, me, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazir, we stand together on this issue and we speak with one voice. And that was the intent behind not attributing authorship to any one person in the judgment. Of course, there has been speculation outside on who actually wrote the judgment. That's beside the point. Well, as I said, you know, we haven't attributed authorship of the judgment," he said.

In November 2019, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of Ram Lalla and said the entire disputed land spread over 2.7 acres will be handed over to a trust formed by the government, which will monitor the construction of a Ram temple at the site.

The top court also added that an alternative five acres of land at a prominent location in Ayodhya should be allotted for the construction of a mosque following consultation between the Centre and the state government.