The 2019 Ayodhya verdict, delivered by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, settled the centuries-old dispute by allocating the contentious site for the construction of a Ram temple. The judgment, while hailed by many as a historic move towards reconciliation, has also faced criticism from various quarters. Critics argue that the ruling disregarded the importance of secularism and undermined the principle of justice by favoring one community over another.
Nariman, who retired from the Supreme Court in 2021, was one of the notable figures who voiced his concerns about the implications of the judgment. His statement about the case being a “great travesty of justice” adds to the growing chorus of legal experts and commentators who have questioned the ruling's fairness and transparency. Nariman’s criticism is particularly significant, as he has long been regarded as a proponent of judicial independence and impartiality.
Legal experts have noted that Nariman’s words reflect a broader sense of unease within legal circles regarding the trajectory of India's highest court, especially in cases involving sensitive issues of religion and politics. Many believe that the Ayodhya case has set a dangerous precedent, one where political considerations may overshadow the judicial mandate to uphold constitutional values. Nariman’s comments reflect these concerns, as he pointed to what he described as an alarming trend of “suits popping up like Hydra heads,” referring to the multiple legal challenges that have continued to arise in the aftermath of the Ayodhya judgment.
The legal and political implications of Nariman’s critique have been felt beyond the courtroom. Several prominent figures in the political and judicial spheres have reacted to the remarks. While some have supported his stance, arguing that the judiciary’s independence is paramount, others have dismissed his views as overly critical of a decision that was widely seen as necessary for national harmony. This division highlights the polarized nature of public opinion on the matter, with some viewing the judgment as a long-awaited resolution to a contentious issue, while others see it as a politically motivated decision.
Beyond the political debate, the case continues to have significant legal ramifications. Despite the conclusion of the main case, new petitions and legal challenges continue to emerge, dealing with issues such as the construction of the temple, the status of other disputed religious sites, and the implementation of the verdict’s provisions. Nariman’s reference to the legal challenges as “Hydra heads” draws attention to the ongoing complexity of the issue, suggesting that the resolution of the Ayodhya case may be far from final.
Nariman’s comments also bring into focus the increasing influence of politics on the judiciary. Critics argue that the Ayodhya verdict, as well as other high-profile cases, have raised concerns about the independence of the judiciary and its ability to deliver impartial justice. With political ideologies and religious considerations playing an increasing role in legal matters, there is growing anxiety that the judiciary could be seen as a tool of the state rather than an independent body that upholds the rule of law.
The criticisms of the Ayodhya verdict are not limited to Nariman’s remarks. Several legal scholars and former judges have also questioned the judgment’s long-term impact on the judicial system. Some have expressed fears that the court’s decision to resolve such a politically charged issue could set a precedent for future cases, where judicial decisions may be influenced more by public opinion and political pressures than by the rule of law.
Nariman’s comments are not the first time that a former judge of the Supreme Court has spoken out against the Ayodhya verdict. In the past, several other prominent legal figures have criticized the judgment for what they perceive as its failure to uphold constitutional values of secularism and equality. The continued criticism suggests that the Ayodhya case will remain a point of contention within the legal community for years to come, with the echoes of the judgment continuing to influence future cases involving religious or political disputes.