After Justice Chandrachud’s Babri Remark, Mohan Gopal Hints at Curative Challenge — But Here’s Why It Won’t Hold

Six years after the Ayodhya verdict was delivered on November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court's decision is still making the rounds and is part of active discussion among the legal fraternity. In 2019, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer had ordered the construction of a Ram Janmabhoomi Temple.

Recently, Professor Mohan G Gopal, while responding to a query made before him at the CH Mohammed Koya National Seminar at the University of Calicut has said that former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud calling the Babri Masjid a fundamental act of desecration could lead to the filing of a curative petition before the Supreme Court challenging the Ayodhya verdict.

These remarks came to be made by CJI Chandrachud during an interview with Newslaundry journalist Sreenivasan Jain, wherein he said that the very erection of the Babri Masjid was an act of desecration of a prior temple.

Professor Gopal is of the view that this observation is at odds with the 2019 judgment, which found no evidence of destroying a temple to construct the mosque.

Now, the real question is whether a curative petition would lie and if it would, what would be its outcome. The concept of curative petition originated from the 2002 case of Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra. A curative petition can be entertained if its established that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice, and the aggrieved party was not heard by the court before passing an order. It can also be entertained when the judge concerned failed to disclose facts that reveal a bias.

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.

During the hearings, when the proposal for mediation was considered, it was argued that the Ayodhya dispute, being a representative suit with implications for the public at large, cannot be resolved through a mediation alone, as any agreement reached would not be binding on the wider public. Despite these arguments, the court referred the case for mediation under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure ensuring that the matter remains confidential.

The mediation panel, headed by Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla along with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu, was granted several extensions to facilitate negotiations. Even during the final hearings, the Court kept the door to settlement open, explicitly allowing any consensus reached to be placed before it. A conditional settlement executed by the Chairman of the Sunni Central Waqf Board was submitted, but it could not be treated as binding, as it was neither unanimous nor unconditional.

In the Ayodhya case,the 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.

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.

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 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 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.”