Ayodhya Ram Mandir: Unique things about the Supreme Court’s judgement in the case

On November 9, 2019 a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by the then Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, delivered its historic verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case. The bench comprised Justices SA Bobde, Ashok Bhushan, DY Chandrachud and Abdul Nazeer.

All the judges in the five judge bench, excepting for DY Chandrachud have now retired. SA Bobde served as the Chief Justice of India between November 2019 to April 2021 while DY Chandrachud is India’s current Chief Justice.

What was the judgement of the Supreme Court?

The five judge bench, unanimously ruled that the disputed land would be given to the centre and directed the centre to form a trust within three months to monitor and manage construction of a temple at the site. The court further directed the centre to give the Sunni Waqf Board an alternative and suitable five-acre plot of land at a prominent place in Ayodhya.

The case reached the Supreme Court after the parties appealed against a 2010 Allahabad High Court ruling, which had, in the absence of a title, divided the 2.7 acre disputed land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, equally between the three primary parties

Moneycontrol takes a look at the unique features of the judgement.

Delivered on a court holiday

The Supreme Court delivered the Ayodhya judgement on a holiday to ensure less commotion. The judgement in the Ayodhya land dispute case was delivered on November 9, a second Saturday. The Supreme Court does not function on Saturdays and Sundays except in exceptional circumstances, where not passing an order would lead to grave injustice to a person. Even in such circumstances, the case is heard just by a bench of two or three judges.

In 2023, the court had the occasion to sit on two Saturdays, once to stay an Allahabad High Court judgement that directed an astrologer to check whether a girl is a ‘manglik’. The second time was to hear social activist Teesta Setalvad’s urgent bail plea.

Author of the judgement: SC’s best kept secret

On January 1, CJI DY Chandrachud, noted that the Supreme Court had kept the “long history of conflict” regarding Ayodhya in mind and decided to “speak in one voice”. He said “Judges in the Ayodhya case unanimously decided there will be no authorship ascribed to judgement”.

So, the public at large does not know who among the five judges authored the judgement. It is the court’s practice to name the author of the judgement in a case. However, the Ayodhya land dispute case is perhaps the only judgement in the Supreme Court’s history where the author is not named. Though there was a lot of speculation as to who wrote the judgement, the court and the judges refused to divulge any details on the authorship. As a result, it remains secret.

Concurring judgement called ‘addendum’:

A concurring judgement is one where a judge, while agreeing with the majority view, decides to write their own reasoning for the same. The Ayodhya judgement has a 115-page concurring opinion by a judge. However, since the court decided not to give authorship of the judgement to any judge, it is called an ‘addendum’. The addendum to the judgement is in a different font as well.

At the end of the majority view, the judgement said, “One of us, while being in agreement with the above reasons and directions, has recorded separate reasons on: ―Whether the disputed structure is the birth-place of Lord Ram according to the faith and belief of the Hindu devotees. The reasons of the learned judge are set out in an addendum.”

Mediation before and during the hearing

Before hearing the land dispute on merits, the five-judge bench decided to refer the case to mediation. In February 2019, the bench appointed retired SC judge Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate cum mediation expert Sriram Panchu as mediators.

After deliberating for close to six months, in August 2019 the panel told the court that no settlement had been reached through mediation. The court decided to immediately commence hearing of the case. However, during the course of the hearing, the mediators submitted a report stating that some of the parties desired to settle the dispute. The Court decided to proceed with the hearing nevertheless after telling the parties to approach the mediators in case there was a settlement. In October 2019, when the hearing was reaching its final stage the mediation panel submitted a report stating that a settlement had been arrived at by some of the parties.

However, since the settlement was subject to fulfilment of certain terms the agreement was not signed by all the parties, it was not treated as a final settlement.

What are the judges of ‘Ayodhya bench’ doing now?

Justice Gogoi retired from the Supreme Court on November 17, 2019, a little over a week after the judgement was delivered. Just a few months later, in April 2020, he became a member of Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the parliament.

Justice Bobde is currently the chairperson of the ‘Bharatiya Bhasha Samiti’, which is developing a Common Core Vocabulary close to all Indian languages for the purpose of translating legal material into regional languages.

Justice Bhushan retired from the Supreme Court in July 2021. He was appointed as the chairperson of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) and continues to hold the post.

Justice Nazeer retired from the Supreme Court in January 2023. In February 2023, he was appointed as the third governor of Andhra Pradesh and continues to hold the post.

Justice Chandrachud was appointed Chief Justice of India in November 2022. His tenure is due to end in November 2024