Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud is facing criticism for “opening the floodgates” of litigation in religious disputes. The controversy began with the Supreme Court’s decision to allow surveys of disputed religious sites in Sambhal and Ajmer, setting what critics claim is a worrying precedent for similar cases.
The Supreme Court, under Justice Chandrachud’s tenure, entertained a string of petitions seeking archaeological and videographic surveys of religious sites where historical disputes exist between Hindus and Muslims. These include the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi, the Shahi Idgah in Mathura, and, most recently, shrines in Sambhal and Ajmer. The Court’s decisions to permit such surveys have reignited tensions over the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which mandates maintaining the religious character of all places of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
Sambhal and Ajmer: The Latest Flashpoints
The first controversy arose in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, where a petition claimed that a mosque was built over an ancient Hindu temple. The Allahabad High Court, following Supreme Court directions, ordered an archaeological survey of the site, leading to protests from Muslim groups.
Shortly after, a similar plea surfaced regarding Ajmer’s iconic dargah of Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, with petitioners alleging that it was built by altering a Hindu structure. The Supreme Court’s willingness to consider such petitions has sparked concerns that the judiciary is encouraging communal divisions.
Critics argue that Justice Chandrachud’s approach has undermined the secular fabric of India. While proponents hail his judgments as an attempt to deliver historical justice, detractors accuse him of legitimizing majoritarian narratives.
“By allowing these surveys, the judiciary is opening Pandora’s box,” said a senior advocate representing one of the Muslim organizations. “This emboldens groups to make baseless claims and disrupt social harmony.”
Some commentators also question the Court’s inconsistency in upholding the Places of Worship Act. “The Act is clear, but the judiciary seems to be bypassing it for select cases, which is deeply troubling,” observed a constitutional law expert.
Supporters of these surveys argue that the judiciary is merely responding to legitimate grievances. “If there is a historical injustice, it is the Court’s duty to address it,” said a petitioner involved in the Sambhal case. Advocates for the surveys claim that they aim to uncover the truth, not stir communal discord.
The controversy highlights a growing trend of litigation targeting mosques and other Islamic structures, raising questions about judicial responsibility in sensitive matters. As more petitions emerge, the judiciary faces the challenge of balancing historical investigation with the need to maintain peace and secularism.
Justice Chandrachud’s decisions have undoubtedly set a precedent that will shape future disputes over religious sites. Whether this legacy is viewed as a pursuit of justice or a threat to communal harmony will depend on how these cases unfold and their broader societal impact.
Post Disclaimer
Disclaimer: First Sambhal, then Ajmer: Ex-CJI Chandrachud under fire for ‘opening floodgates of survey pleas’ - Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect www.globalmuslimscenario.com/ point-of-view
Post Disclaimer |
IMPORTANT : All content hosted on globalmuslimscenario.com is solely for non-commercial purposes and with the permission of original copyright holders. Any other use of the hosted content, such as for financial gain, requires express approval from the copyright owners.