Chief Justice Chandrachud reveals why Ayodhya title case verdict was ‘unanimous’

Over four years have passed since the Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision regarding the Ayodhya dispute, a verdict that has had a profound impact on the nation’s history.

On Monday, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud reflected on the collective nature of the judgment made by the five-judge bench, which included himself, emphasising that no single judge was credited as the author of the ruling.

The pivotal judgment, issued on November 9, 2019, resolved a contentious issue that had lingered for over a century. The bench, led by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, not only facilitated the construction of a Ram temple at the contested site but also directed that a separate five-acre parcel of land be allocated for the building of a mosque within the city of Ayodhya.

Speaking to news agency PTI, CJI Chandrachud disclosed details about the decision-making process behind the scenes. He explained that the judges had reached a consensus to present the verdict as a unified voice of the court, rather than attributing it to any individual.

“When the five-judge bench sat to deliberate on the judgment as we all do before a judgment is pronounced, we all decided unanimously that this will be a judgment of the court. And, therefore, there was no authorship ascribed to any individual judge,” the CJI said.

“The case has a long history of conflict, of diverse viewpoints based on the history of the nation and all those who were part of the bench decided that this will be a judgment of the court. The court will speak through one voice and the idea of doing so was to send a clear message that all of us stood together not only in the ultimate outcome but in the reasons indicated in the judgment,” he said, adding “I will close my answer with that.”

The 2019 decision by the Supreme Court bench acknowledged the unchallenged belief of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site, effectively recognising him as the symbolic owner of the land. However, the court also noted that the demolition of the 16th-century Babri Masjid by Hindu activists was an act that needed rectification.