Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud instructed journalist Sreenivasan Jain in an interview for Newslaundry that the constructing of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya within the sixteenth century was “the elemental act of desecration” on the web site the place the Ram Temple now stands.
Chandrachud was a 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 historic Ram temple stood on the location.
In 2019, the Supreme Court bench directed that the plot be allotted to a belief that might oversee the development of a Ram Temple, whereas a separate five-acre plot be allotted in Ayodhya to Muslims for establishing a mosque.
Over 4 years later, the Ram temple was inaugurated in Ayodhya in a ceremony led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on January 22, 2024. The building of the temple advanced continues to be underway.
The Supreme Court, in its verdict, had mentioned that though the Archeological Survey of India had discovered that there existed a construction beneath the Babri Masjid, it didn’t say whether or not the construction was demolished to construct a mosque. The courtroom had famous that for the reason that ASI report had dated the underlying construction to the twelfth century, there was a spot of about 4 centuries between the construction and the development of the mosque.
Also learn: No, the Supreme Court didn’t uphold the declare that Babri Masjid was constructed by demolishing a temple
Despite this, Chandrachud instructed Newslaundry within the interview that the very erection of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was the “elementary act of desecration”. He made the assertion in response to a query by journalist Sreenivasan Jain concerning the criticisms of the Supreme Court judgement.
Jain mentioned the declare concerning the inside courtyard of the mosque being disputed arose as a result of Hindus had been mentioned to have dedicated unlawful acts, together with desecration, on the spot. The journalist mentioned that as per this argument, the truth that Muslims didn’t accomplish that within the outer courtyard grew to become grounds to “punish them”, as a result of it weighed towards them within the judgement.
In response, Chandrachud remarked: “When you mentioned that it was the Hindus who had been desecrating the inside courtyard, what concerning the elementary act of desecration – the very erection of the mosque. We neglect all that occurred? We neglect what occurred in historical past?”
The “very erection” of Babri mosque was the “elementary act of desecration”, DY Chandrachud tells me.
A startling assertion — all of the extra given the decision he co-authored clearly says no proof was provided to point out if the sooner construction was demolished to construct a… pic.twitter.com/wyEj7UMgqq
— Sreenivasan Jain (@SreenivasanJain) September 24, 2025
Jain, nonetheless, identified that the Supreme Court had mentioned there was no proof that the underlying construction was essentially demolished to construct a mosque. To this, Chandrachud maintained: “There was satisfactory proof from the archaeological excavation. Now, what the evidentiary worth of an archaeological excavation is, was a separate difficulty altogether.”
The former chief justice was later requested if the demolition of the mosque in 1992 may have been justified even it was accepted that there was a historical past of desecration on the web site.
To this, Chandrachud mentioned: “Not in any respect. Supreme Court judgment applies typical yardsticks of figuring out the antagonistic possession and it’s on the premise of proof and standard yardsticks that we’ve got utilized and are available to the conclusion.”
Adverse possession is a authorized precept that permits an individual to amass the possession of another person’s land in the event that they occupied it brazenly, constantly and with out the proprietor’s permission for a set period of time.
Chandrachud’s assertion drew criticism from a number of attorneys and activists on social media. Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned that the previous chief justice of India has laid “naked his communal mindset” within the interview.
“[Chandrachud] says destruction of temple 500 years in the past (of which there was no proof) is nice motive to offer the land to the destroyers of the mosque now,” Bhushan mentioned in a social media publish. “No marvel he allowed the survey of the Gyanvapi mosque to proceed, regardless of his judgement in Ayodhya saying that the Places of Worship Act would put an finish to such disputes in future!”
Lawyer Rohin Bhatt additionally alleged that Chandrachud was “parroting” the speaking factors of Hindutva organisations Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
Also learn: 1951 to 2019: How the Indian judiciary turned the Babri Masjid into the Ram Mandir
