Attempts were made for SC to not hear Ayodhya case; judges displayed amazing skills: SG Tushar Mehta
"There were attempts, sometimes veiled attempts, sometimes very, very visible attempts, to ensure that the matter was not heard," SG Mehta said.
SG Mehta has said the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case was a turning point in many ways.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta on Friday said that attempts were made to delay the hearing of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in the Supreme Court.
Speaking at the launch of a book, titled "Case for Ram -The untold insiders' story", SG Mehta said that two eminent counsels arguing the case even walked out of court during the hearing of the Ayodhya case. He lauded the five-judge bench which heard the case and said that in the in the midst of all that judges displayed amazing skills of judicial statesmanship and ensured that things moved in the right direction.
"One incident which had left a very bitter taste in my mind is when all attempts to delay failed, two of the eminent counsels staged a walkout, which is something we have only heard in Parliament," he added.
The Ayodhya judgment reflects the Supreme Court’s constitutional role in delivering complete justice in disputes which could not have been adjudicated under existing laws. The 2019 verdict is a 1045 pages comprehensive judgment based on a record of over 30,000 pages. The decision came after a long deliberation between all the parties and after the possibility of a mediation was also looked into and exhausted.
In the case, Supreme Court referenced Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India to underline that complete justice under Article 142 must be assessed in light of fundamental public policy. The Ayodhya dispute involved overlapping issues of religion, history, property rights, and societal harmony in a context where conventional statutory rules alone could not resolve the matter conclusively. The Court highlighted that Article 142 allows it to craft remedies tailored to the specifics of a case when rigid application of laws is inadequate. This power ensures that justice is not confined to rule-based adjudication but incorporates equitable principles to achieve outcomes that are fair, reasonable, and consistent with the Constitution’s vision.
A reference to the history of the site of Ram Janmbhoomi as expounded by the High Court consistently records the destruction of a Ram temple and reuse of its materials in Babur’s mosque, underscoring that this was not a recent controversy but a long-standing grievance. By drawing on history and equity, the Supreme Court ensured that justice was not confined to rigid legalism but responsive to India’s constitutional vision.
Former Chief Justice of India Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, who was part of the bench that delivered the verdict, also recently revisited the Ayodhya case, often criticised as a majoritarian triumph. Calling it a property dispute rather than an ideological contest, Dr. Chandrachud said: “Read the judgment… The problem is, most of the people who attack us don’t have the time, the patience, or the inclination to read 1045 pages judgment. Why was it 1045 pages – because the record was 30,000 pages.”
Dr. Chandrachud also spoke candidly about the role of personal faith in his life as a judge, describing it as a source of inner balance rather than ideological influence; “My religion allows me to pray across religions… This is the broad diversity of my own faith. A faith which accepts the fact that just as I believe, I must have faith in other people’s right to believe and to respect their faith. I don’t think there is anything wrong in doing what I did every single day of my life as a judge – namely, spending my moments in quiet reflection and prayer in the morning so that the work which I do as a judge, work which is in a zone of intense conflict, does not end in injustice to anybody. The Constitution allows me to do it".