Former Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud has said that a comment made by him in 2022 on the Places of Worship Act, 1991 being no bar to ascertain religious “character” was only an observation and cannot be regarded as a verdict by the court.
Speaking at the India Economic Conclave 2024 organised by Times Network, the former CJI said, “Any discussion in the court has to be understood in the context of a dialogue in the court...To say that an observation or a dialogue in the court is reflective of the position the court would ultimately take would be doing a disservice to the nature of dialogue in the court.”
Justice Chandrachud was referring to an observation by him in May 2022 while hearing the matter relating to conduct of survey in the premises of the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, which is in the middle of a dispute in a suit filed by Hindu parties claiming right to worship in the mosque after a survey of the precincts claimed to find a structure similar to a Shivling.
Justice Chandrachud, who demitted office on November 10 , was asked at the event on Thursday to comment on the Act and his observation of 2022. While he declined to comment on the Act since the matter is sub-judice before the top court, on his observation, he said, “Questions are posed to lawyers to elicit the truth... Unless the last word of the court is printed in the judgment, whatever said y the court is just an observation for that moment. It has no precedential value. It cannot be used in any future proceedings.”
{{/usCountry}}Justice Chandrachud, who demitted office on November 10 , was asked at the event on Thursday to comment on the Act and his observation of 2022. While he declined to comment on the Act since the matter is sub-judice before the top court, on his observation, he said, “Questions are posed to lawyers to elicit the truth... Unless the last word of the court is printed in the judgment, whatever said y the court is just an observation for that moment. It has no precedential value. It cannot be used in any future proceedings.”
{{/usCountry}}A bench headed by then-CJI Chandrachud had allowed the survey to go on, and remarked during the hearing that while the 1991 Act freezes the religious character status of all places of worship as on August 15, 1947, there can be no bar ascertaining religious character. This observation sparked a massive controversy and spurred litigations by Hindu parties claiming similar relief across the country with regard to existing Muslim shrines.
Besides the Gyanvapi suit, there are suits pending against Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura, Bhojshala mosque in Madhya Pradesh, Shahi Jama Masjid in Sambhal, and more recently a suit filed against the world-renowned Ajmer Dargah.
In a significant development, a bench headed by present CJI Sanjiv Khanna on Thursday put an interim lid on the controversy by directing no new suit to be registered with a further direction to trial courts not to give effect to any order or survey report over disputed structure. This order will remain in place till the top court finally decides on the validity of the 1991 Act.
Incidentally, the Ayodhya title suit judgment of November 2019 decided by a five-judge Constitution bench, which also had justice Chandrachud as a member, had said, “The Places of Worship Act imposes a non-derogable obligation towards enforcing our commitment to secularism under the Indian Constitution. The law is, hence, a legislative instrument designed to protect the secular features of the Indian polity, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution.”