‘Unforgivable institutional amnesia’: Retired HC judge on ‘unfortunate’ aftermath of Ayodhya case

“Directions under Article 142 were issued – no one asked for it, no legal basis, no prayer, hence no opposition. No central government or Hindu group lawyer had asked for it, no issue on constructing a temple was there before it,” Justice Muralidhar explained.

He further clarified his position by saying that “it was completely outside the realm of the suits before it”, adding that the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition has not ended yet.

“Despite the Places of Worship Act being mentioned, we have had suits emerging everywhere – 17 suits all over the country,” he said.

During his address at the AG Noorani memorial lecture at the India Islamic and Cultural Centre, he bemoaned the fact that the electronic media in the country kept harping on “Hindu-Muslim questions” instead of plurality.

Speaking about the long history of the Ram Janmabhoomi case judgment, he said, “We tend to forget that ours is a composite culture …The aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition is disappointing as far as courts are concerned …What they say throughout the judgment and what they (eventually) rule does not seem a logical outcome at all.”

He took on former Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, widely perceived as being the author of that judgment, and said, “It was an author-less judgment but the author himself said he consulted the deity before (delivering) it.”

Making it clear that India’s strength lies in its plurality and diversity, he explained, “India’s population is as diverse as it is also devout … We never were nor can be one culture, one language, or one religion.”

The retired judge expressed his agreement with Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia’s opinion in the Hijab case.

“Getting into essential religious practices is problematic because you are entering theology. It is a dangerous exercise because judges can get it wrong,” he said.

He emphasised that the country is at a critical juncture, where future generations must be sensitised to constitutional values. “When neighbours and friends accuse one of being Pakistani, it brings fear and insecurity.”

He cautioned against making a spectacle of personal religious beliefs among the judges. “Even as the judiciary, we need to look inwards. We don’t ask who our judges and what their religious beliefs are,” he said.

Justice Muralidhar opined that to teach secularism and other constitutional values to future generations, one will have to go back to and start from schools.