How Careerism and Controversial Judgments Undermined Judicial Integrity and Communal Harmony in India
IN MY INTERVIEWS with Neelu Vyas and Kapil Sibal, I have stated that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Chandrachud was a rank careerist throughout his judicial career. He was willing to give dishonest judgments whenever he thought that delivering an honest one might jeopardize his chance of becoming CJI. A typical example was his dishonest judgment in the Babri Masjid case.
Justice Y V Chandrachud
Like his father, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, who delivered a controversial judgment in the ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla case—where the majority held that a citizen has no right to life and liberty during an Emergency—Justice D.Y. Chandrachud also seemed to prioritize career advancement over judicial integrity. Justice H.R. Khanna was the only one to dissent in the ADM Jabalpur case, doing so bravely at the cost of losing the Chief Justiceship.
During the hearing of the Gyanvapi mosque case in May 2022 in the Supreme Court, Justice Chandrachud dishonestly commented that the Places of Worship Act, 1991, does not bar the ascertainment of the religious character of a structure. In other words, he suggested that courts can investigate the historical identity of a place of worship, even if such findings cannot alter its current status.
However, the Act explicitly states that the religious character of a structure as of August 15, 1947, cannot be altered. The purpose of this law was to put an end to disputes about religious structures. Even if a mosque was built by demolishing a Hindu temple before 1947, it cannot be reconverted into a Hindu temple under the Act.
Chandrachud’s observation enabled surveys to be conducted on mosques, including digging to find remnants of Hindu temples on the site. This was a blatant obfuscation by Chandrachud and recalls Yudhishthir’s ambiguous statement in the Mahabharata, “Naro va, kunjaro va,” after falsely claiming that Ashwatthama was dead.
The Ayodhya Judgment and Its Repercussions
The judgment delivered in the Ayodhya case, which allowed the construction of a Ram temple at the site of the Babri Masjid, was widely criticized for its legal and logical inconsistencies. As highlighted in this article, the verdict relied on a “strange feat of logic” where the Supreme Court acknowledged the unlawful demolition of the mosque in 1992 but still granted the land to the Hindu parties. This precedent significantly eroded the faith of minority communities in the judiciary.
The Ayodhya judgment has fuelled ongoing disputes over other religious sites. For instance, in the Gyanvapi mosque case, the court’s endorsement of surveys undermined the Places of Worship Act and has led to the reopening of old wounds, threatening communal harmony.
The Gyanvapi Mosque Case and Beyond
Following Justice Chandrachud’s comments during the Gyanvapi hearings, courts have increasingly entertained petitions seeking surveys of religious sites. The result has been disastrous. Surveys have been ordered for the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, leading to the capture of its basement by Hindu groups conducting aarti there.
Similarly, the Shahi Masjid in Mathura, the Jama Masjid in Sambhal, and even the famous Ajmer Sharif Dargah have become the subject of legal battles and archaeological surveys.
As reported by The Wire, the Rajasthan High Court recently issued notices in a petition alleging that a Shiva temple lies beneath the Ajmer Dargah. Such cases further inflame communal tensions, with the potential to lead to mob violence similar to the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
A Pandora’s Box for Communal Discord
Justice Chandrachud has opened a Pandora’s box, threatening to tear apart India’s social fabric. With tens of thousands of mosques in the country, disputes can now arise over many of them, alleging they were built after destroying Hindu temples. These so-called “surveys” often involve excavations followed by announcements that a Hindu temple previously stood there. This can lead to mobs of bigots demolishing mosques or dargahs, as was done to the Babri Masjid.
As highlighted in The Wire’s analysis, such cases are not merely legal disputes but calculated attempts to reshape India’s historical and cultural narrative. By enabling these surveys, Justice Chandrachud has undermined the spirit of the Places of Worship Act, which sought to maintain communal harmony and prevent exactly this kind of turmoil.
A Careerist Judge’s Legacy
Why did Chandrachud make such an observation, knowing it would undermine the Places of Worship Act?
Clearly, because at the time, he was not yet CJI and did not want to jeopardize his prospects of attaining the position.
He likely feared that if he ruled the suit unmaintainable under the Act, the BJP might be displeased and supersede him.
Chandrachud has inflicted incalculable harm on India, even as he ingratiates himself with the BJP, which will likely reward him as it did with another former CJI, Ranjan Gogoi. His actions have set dangerous precedents that could lead to further communal strife, deepening divisions in an already polarized society. 
Also Read: Keep the Communal Pot Boiling
Markandey Katju
Justice Markandey Katju is former Judge, Supreme Court of India and former Chairman, Press Council of India.
Disclaimer : PunjabTodayNews.com and other platforms of the Punjab Today group strive to include views and opinions from across the entire spectrum, but by no means do we agree with everything we publish. Our efforts and editorial choices consistently underscore our authors’ right to the freedom of speech. However, it should be clear to all readers that individual authors are responsible for the information, ideas or opinions in their articles, and very often, these do not reflect the views of PunjabTodayNews.com or other platforms of the group. Punjab Today does not assume any responsibility or liability for the views of authors whose work appears here.
Punjab Today believes in serious, engaging, narrative journalism at a time when mainstream media houses seem to have given up on long-form writing and news television has blurred or altogether erased the lines between news and slapstick entertainment. We at Punjab Today believe that readers such as yourself appreciate cerebral journalism, and would like you to hold us against the best international industry standards. Brickbats are welcome even more than bouquets, though an occasional pat on the back is always encouraging. Good journalism can be a lifeline in these uncertain times worldwide. You can support us in myriad ways. To begin with, by spreading word about us and forwarding this reportage. Stay engaged.
— Team PT