Ex-CJI's Explosive Babri Masjid Claims Rekindle Fiery Debate

A fresh storm has erupted across India following controversial remarks by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi regarding the landmark 2019 Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi verdict. In a recent interview, Justice Gogoi asserted that the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision, which allowed for the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed Ayodhya site, was not a “compromise” but a matter of “conviction.” This declaration has swiftly reignited a deeply sensitive debate, drawing sharp criticism from various sections of society.

Justice Gogoi’s comments are seen by many as highly problematic, especially given the contentious nature of the Ayodhya dispute, which culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and decades of legal battles.

The former CJI, who headed the five-judge bench that delivered the verdict, has been at the center of scrutiny since his post-retirement nomination to the Rajya Sabha, India's upper house of parliament. Critics argue that his latest statements further erode the public’s trust in judicial impartiality and could be interpreted as an attempt to justify a judgment that many already viewed with skepticism.

Legal experts, prominent historians, and political figures have vociferously condemned Gogoi's remarks.

The Congress party, a major opposition force, has questioned the timing and intent behind his statement, suggesting it reinforces doubts about the independence of the judiciary. Similarly, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has expressed dismay, reiterating their long-held belief that the 2019 verdict failed to deliver complete justice to the Muslim community.

Historians and civil rights activists have pointed out that characterising the verdict as a 'conviction' ignores the complex historical and legal arguments involved, and potentially trivialises the pain and grievances of those who felt aggrieved by the judgment.

The 2019 Supreme Court ruling, while granting the disputed 2.77-acre site to the Hindu parties for the construction of the Ram Temple, also directed the government to allot an alternative 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque.

At the time, the verdict was hailed by some as a solution to a long-standing national dispute, while others criticised it for seemingly prioritising faith over documented historical claims and the legal principle of adverse possession. Justice Gogoi's recent intervention has not only reopened old wounds but has also intensified the scrutiny on post-retirement judicial conduct, sparking a renewed and passionate discourse on justice, politics, and the judiciary's role in India.