The recent interview with former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud revealed a pattern. The former CJI would initially stick to the content of the verdict but then offer justifications that were absent or in conflict with the official judgments.
When asked why the desecration of the Babri mosque in 1949 didn’t weigh against the Hindu parties, Chandrachud asserted that the very erection of the mosque was the fundamental desecration, despite the Supreme Court judgment itself noting that there is no archeological evidence to suggest that an earlier structure was demolished to build the mosque.
Similarly, when asked about the Supreme Court’s decision to permit an investigation into the Ganvapi mosque in Banaras, Chandrachud justified the decision by claiming that it is “undisputed” that Hindu prayer had historically taken place in the mosque’s basement – a claim contested by the mosque’s caretakers and courts.
This has intensified debates surrounding his judicial legacy, with some seeing him as a defender of liberal constitutional values, while others view him as a chief justice tailored to suit the current government’s ideology.
Watch.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
