Key Points:
Ex-CJI DY Chandrachud refered to the construction of the Babri Masjid as the "fundamental act of desecration" in an interview with The News Minute.
He said the SC's 2019 Ayodhya verdict was based on evidence, not faith.
He has previously been criticised for "praying to God for a solution" to the case and praying at the Ram Mandir
Former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud has caused an uproar after his interview with a media portal in which he talked about his new book Why the Constitution Matters and his tenure as Chief Justice of India. Speaking to The News Minute, Chandrachud landed himself in controversy when asked about the Ayodhya verdict of 2019 which he presided over. Speaking on the judgement, Chandrachud called the erection of the Babri Masjid the “fundamental act of desecration”.
In the interview, released on 24 September 2025, journalist Sreenivasan Jain questioned the former CJI on the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s controversial decision. In November 2019, a five-judge bench led by then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi, of which Chandrachud was a part, declared the title of the disputed site in the name of Bhagwan Sri Ram Birajman, or Ram Lalla. The Supreme Court order overturned an earlier High Court decision, which divided the site three ways, based on two conclusions: that the disputed site is a composite whole which cannot be sub-divided, and that the Hindu plaintiffs had a stronger case of possession.
Talking about the first conclusion, Chandrachud argued that dividing the site between the two parties would have led to further unrest. The second conclusion was more complex.
It was based on the fact that the Hindu side could prove ‘exclusive ownership’ over the outer courtyard of the mosque, while the Muslim side could not prove the same for the inside. Bringing up this point, Jain pointed out that the reason the inner courtyard was contested was because it was desecrated by the Hindu side in 1949, as stated in the 2019 judgement. He asks Chandrachud, then, whether the fact that the Muslim side “did not put up a fight” for the outer courtyard actually harmed their case. Replying to this, Chandrachud called the erection of the mosque itself the “fundamental act of desecration.”
See Also: Electoral Bond hearing: Here's what CJI Chandrachud said on corporate contributions, anonymity
He argued that not taking this into account was a ‘selective view of history’. Jain countered by pointing out that there was a gap of hundreds of years between the construction of the earlier structure and that of the mosque. The SC judgement itself concluded that “the ASI report has left unanswered a critical part of the remit which was made to it, namely, a determination of whether a Hindu temple had been demolished to pave way for the construction of the mosque.”
Chandrachud continued by saying that the court arrived at its decision by applying “conventional yardsticks of adverse possession,” commonly known as ‘squatter’s rights’. This is a legal doctrine that allows an entity to acquire ownership of a property by openly, continuously and non-permissively occupying it for a period of time.
He added that criticisms against the judgment that say it was based on faith rather than evidence were unfounded and made by people who have not read the judgement. The addendum to the judgement has been criticized for being biased and extensively quoting Hindu scripture; “Faith and belief of the Hindus, as depicted by the evidence on record, clearly establish the Hindus’ belief that at the birthplace of Lord Ram, the mosque was constructed and three-dome structure is the birthplace of Lord Ram,” it read.
In the past Chandrachud has been criticized for bringing bias into the verdict. Though the judgement was passed by the bench unanimously without naming the author, it is generally accepted as being written by Chandrachud. This is due the style in which the verdict was written – no other judge breaks down their judgement into chapters.
He has faced flak for saying he “prayed to God for a solution” on the Ayodhya case and later for praying at the Ram Mandir, citing a conflict of interest. [Rh/DS]
Suggested Reading:
