Ayodhya Judgment Based on Evidence, Not Faith: Chandrachud

Spread love

In a conversation with journalist Sreenivasan Jain, former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stressed that the Ayodhya ruling applied conventional legal yardsticks like adverse possession, rejecting claims that the judgment ignored history or rested on faith.

By TRH News Desk

NEW DELHI, September 25, 2025 — Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has pushed back against criticism of the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya judgment, asserting that the ruling was rooted in evidence and legal principles, not religious faith. In a detailed exchange with journalist Sreenivasan Jain of News Laundry, Chandrachud addressed some of the most contested aspects of the case, including the role of archaeology, adverse possession, and the question of historical desecration.

Jain pointed out that critics argue the court’s reasoning effectively punished Muslims for not contesting control of the outer courtyard while overlooking that Hindus had desecrated the inner courtyard in earlier times. Chandrachud responded by emphasizing that the judgment could not “shut its eyes” to historical evidence, including archaeological reports.

“All that I want to say really is this: ultimately, people who have criticized the judgment want to ignore the fundamental history of the mosque and then look at selective elements of history in support of what they postulate,” Chandrachud said.

On the archaeological findings, Jain reminded the former CJI that the excavation did not establish that the Babri Masjid was constructed by demolishing a temple. Chandrachud acknowledged the gap in evidence but argued that the report still held weight. “There was adequate evidence from the archaeological excavation. Now, what the evidentiary value of an archaeological excavation is, was a separate issue altogether,” he explained.

Addressing the suggestion that the court could have partitioned the land between communities, Chandrachud argued that such a move could have fomented further unrest rather than brought peace. Instead, he said, the judgment relied on well-settled legal yardsticks: “If you are applying a well-settled yardstick of what constitutes adverse possession, that possession has to be open, continuous, acknowledged, and of a settled nature.”

Crucially, he rejected the charge that the Supreme Court’s unanimous verdict was faith-driven. “The criticism that the judgment is based on faith and not on evidence is a criticism of people who, I dare say, have not read the judgment,” Chandrachud said. “You may agree with the reasons or you may disagree, but that is for citizens to debate.”

The remarks add an important layer to the continuing debate around the Ayodhya dispute, which culminated in the 2019 judgment that handed the disputed site to Hindus for the construction of a Ram Mandir, while allotting an alternate plot to Muslims for a mosque.

Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn