Earlier this month, former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman criticized the five-judge bench responsible for delivering the Ayodhya Ram Mandir verdict five years ago, describing the judgment as a "mockery of justice." In response, senior Supreme Court lawyer J Sai Deepak condemned Nariman's controversial remarks during an ANI podcast.
“It’s very unfair. When members of a particular institution say that this institution has gone downhill after my exit that I think is too much of a statement to me. And two, some of his statements both on history and especially contentious aspects of history and let’s say his specific points on the Ram Mandir case are as inaccurate as they can get. To say that there were no findings whatsoever from the Supreme Court on the existence of a temple underneath the disputed structure, call it only the disputed structure and nothing else, is false. It’s provably, demonstrably and patently false,” advocate J Sai Deepak said.
(Images via Bar and Bench, ANI)
“Read the Allahabad High Court judgement, read the addendum to the judgement of the Supreme Court and then you will see that there are instances where they say Guru Nanak visits once there was a Mandir, Guru Nanak visits again and then the temple was not there. So what happened in between? Earthquake? There are corroborating records and you’re telling me that a general pattern of behaviour that has been witnessed across the subcontinent and the world, you’re telling me suddenly did not happen here. So we are not the playground for expansionist ideologies. We are only asking for what belongs to us through a court of law. What is unreasonable about this position?” Sai Deepak further explained that, contrary to Nariman’s claim, the Supreme Court did not hesitate to acknowledge the existence of a temple but refrained from determining who was responsible for its destruction.
Retired SC Judge Criticizes SC Verdict on Ram Mandir
In 2019, the Supreme Court resolved the protracted Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi dispute by delivering a landmark verdict. The Court ruled that the land belonged to the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple Trust and affirmed its historical significance as the birthplace of Lord Ram for centuries. It also directed the Trust to construct a temple on the site. However, the decision faced prolonged criticism from left-leaning and liberal groups, who alleged the judgment was biased. Five years later, the Ram temple stands proudly in Ayodhya, drawing lakhs of Hindu devotees, though the dissent surrounding the verdict persists.
On Thursday, December 6, former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman criticized the five-judge bench responsible for the Ayodhya ruling, describing the decision as a “mockery of justice” that violated the core principles of secularism. Justice Nariman shared his views during the inaugural lecture of the Ahmadi Foundation, established in honor of Justice Aziz Mushabber Ahmadi, the 26th Chief Justice of India. During the lecture, he mentioned, “We find today, like hydra heads popping up all over the country, there is suit after suit filed all over the place. Now not only concerning mosques but also dargahs. All this can lead to communal tension and disharmony, contrary to what is envisaged in both our Constitution and the Places of Worship Act.”
Justice Nariman highlighted that the five-judge constitution bench, which issued the ruling in 2019, provided further clarification on the purpose of the Places of Worship Act. "This very Constitution Bench dedicates five pages to it, stating that in the context of secularism, which is part of the Basic Structure, one must look forward, not backward… Every religious place of worship is frozen as of 15th August 1947. Anyone attempting to alter this will have their suits dismissed," he explained.
Nariman also noted that the entire Ram Janmabhoomi issue began in 1984. He described the karseva movement led by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad as a ‘dictatorial’ and ‘tyrannical’ demand to build the temple. Reflecting on his professional dealings with cases arising from the Babri structure demolition in 1992, Nariman mentioned that two FIRs were filed that year—one against the karsevaks and the other against political figures allegedly responsible for inciting the actions.
“Until it came to me, in 2017, when I was sitting with Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, nothing had taken place in these two FIRs for 25 years,” he claimed.
Nariman also accused the Hindu community of repeatedly acting against the law in the Ram Temple case, but historical evidence contradicts this. The Hindu side has consistently pursued legal channels, taking their case through British-era judges, the District Court, the High Court, and ultimately the Supreme Court. Hindus have sought the temple’s rightful place within the law, despite their deity being dismissed and disrespected as "imaginary."
Had Hindus truly operated outside the law, the Babri Masjid would not have remained standing until December 6th, 1992, nor would the temple consecration have been planned three decades later. Furthermore, Nariman is said to have expressed disappointment over the fact that a ‘mosque’ was not rebuilt on the same site after the Babri demolition.
Nariman called the failure to rebuild a mosque a ‘travesty of justice,’ suggesting it would have been fitting compensation for the demolition of the so-called mosque. However, Nariman overlooked the fact that the true compensation lay in the construction of the Ram Temple. His concern seemed to center on compensating for the destruction of a building, while he showed little regard for addressing the centuries of injustice Hindus had endured.
Nariman criticized the Supreme Court's verdict, claiming that ‘secularism’ had been disregarded in the judgment. His implication appeared to be that secularism would only have been respected if Hindus had renounced their claim and remained silent.
At the same time, Nariman expressed frustration over notices being sent to Mosques and Dargahs that were built by demolishing Hindu temples. He called such petitions ‘hydra heads’ and warned that they could escalate communal tensions.
In conclusion, Nariman called for the strict enforcement of the 1991 law, which prevents Hindus from seeking legal redress for the historical destruction of their religious sites. He argued that tolerance and communal harmony could only be achieved by rigorously applying this law.
Rohinton Nariman’s discontent with the Ram Temple decision may also be influenced by the views of his father, Fali S. Nariman, a prominent lawyer in India. Fali S. Nariman had previously expressed unease about a Hindu monk becoming the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Rohinton Nariman himself has made controversial statements regarding the dignity of women in the Sanatan tradition, citing the Rigveda. One must wonder how society would have reacted had he made similar remarks about women in relation to texts from other religions—this could be a true test of tolerance.
Kommentare