Reflecting on Ayodhya: Chandrachud's Call for Constitutional Morality Amidst Historical Verdicts

In the annals of India's judicial history, few cases resonate with the profound societal and constitutional implications of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. The Supreme Court's 2019 verdict on Ayodhya, a meticulously crafted document of over 1,000 pages, sought to navigate a complex tapestry of historical claims, religious sentiments, and legal principles.

At the heart of this judgment, and indeed, central to Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud's subsequent reflections, lies a crucial interrogation of constitutional morality and the enduring duty of the judiciary.

Justice Chandrachud, one of the five judges on the Ayodhya bench, recently revisited the judgment, offering insights that transcend the mere legal outcome.

His discourse at an event highlighted the inherent tension between popular sentiment and constitutional fidelity, emphasizing that the judiciary's role is not to simply echo the will of the majority. Instead, it is to uphold the foundational tenets of the Constitution, particularly the principle of secularism, which stands as a bedrock of India's democratic fabric.

The Babri Masjid judgment, while allocating the disputed land for the construction of a Ram temple, also acknowledged the unlawful demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992.

This dual approach—addressing both the historical claim and the egregious act of destruction—was a delicate balancing act. Chandrachud underscored the Court's imperative to address the 'wrong' perpetrated by the demolition, a wrong that deeply scarred the nation's secular ethos. This recognition was not a mere footnote; it was a testament to the Court's commitment to justice, even as it sought a pragmatic resolution to a centuries-old dispute.

A critical aspect of Chandrachud's reflection centers on the concept of 'constitutional morality' and the 'duties' of the court.

He posited that judges are not passive interpreters of law but active guardians of the Constitution. Their duty extends beyond strict legal interpretation to upholding the spirit of the Constitution, particularly when faced with issues that evoke strong public emotions. The Ayodhya verdict, in this light, was an exercise in navigating the treacherous waters where historical wrongs meet contemporary constitutional principles.

The Chief Justice's remarks bring to the forefront a vital lesson from the Ayodhya case: the enduring relevance of judicial statesmanship in maintaining social harmony and constitutional order.

By acknowledging the demolition as a .