Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud remarked that the building of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in the 16th century was “the fundamental act of desecration” at the site where the Ram Temple now stands.
In an interview to Sreenivasan Jain, the former Chief Justice of India, said there is enough historical evidence to say that very erection of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was the “fundamental act of desecration”. He made the statement in response to a question by journalist Sreenivasan Jain about the criticisms of the Supreme Court judgement.
However, the former CJI was quick to allay criticism over over his recent remark that the “erection of the Babri Masjid was a fundamental act of desecration.". Chandrachud clarified that his comments had been taken out of context. He said excerpts from his interview were being selectively quoted on social media, resulting in a distorted portrayal of his views. “What is happening on social media is that people lift one part of the answer and combine it with another part, completely removing the context,” Chandrachud said at the India Today Conclave in Mumbai on Thursday.
Chandrachud was part of a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court that delivered its verdict on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute on November 9, 2019.
The Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was demolished on December 6, 1992, by Hindu extremists who claimed that an ancient Ram temple stood on the site. In 2019, the Supreme Court bench directed that the plot be allotted to a trust that would oversee the construction of a Ram Temple, while a separate five-acre plot be allotted in Ayodhya to Muslims for constructing a mosque.
Replying to a question on the claim about the inner courtyard of the mosque being disputed arose because Hindus were said to have committed illegal acts, including desecration, at the spot, the former CJI remarked: “When you said that it was the Hindus who were desecrating the inner courtyard, what about the fundamental act of desecration – the very erection of the mosque. We forget all that happened? We forget what happened in history?”
Chandrachud was later asked if the demolition of the mosque in 1992 could have been justified even it was accepted that there was a history of desecration at the site. To this, the former CJI said: “Not at all. Supreme Court judgment applies conventional yardsticks of determining the adverse possession and it is on the basis of evidence and conventional yardsticks that we have applied and come to the conclusion.”
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
