A widely discussed public argument by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, suggesting that the very erection of the Babri Masjid was an act of ‘desecration,’ does not feature as a foundational reasoning within the 2019 Ramjanmabhoomi judgment. While Justice Chandrachud is largely understood to be a key author of this monumental verdict, its core logic lies elsewhere.
The comprehensive 1045-page judgment, addressing the protracted title dispute over 1,500 square yards in Ayodhya, was primarily grounded in the “test of preponderance of probabilities.” This legal principle was applied to determine who held effective possession of the disputed premises’ outer and inner courtyards.
The Supreme Court’s five-judge Bench concluded, based on the ‘balance of probabilities,’ that Hindus had maintained unchallenged control over the outer courtyard, even after a grill-brick wall was erected in 1857. Regarding the inner courtyard, the court found sufficient evidence to establish Hindu worship activity ‘prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857.’
Five years ago, when the court decreed the disputed title in favor of the Hindus, its reasoning highlighted a crucial lack of evidence demonstrating exclusive Muslim possession of the inner structure before 1857.
Interestingly, the 2019 judgment characterized the Mughal conquest of territories as a ‘supra-national act between two sovereigns.’ It notably refrained from entertaining or enforcing rights to the disputed property based solely on the historical existence of an underlying temple from the 12th century.
The court also found the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) report inconclusive on whether a temple was demolished to build the Babri Masjid centuries ago. It explicitly stated that the ASI report and its findings regarding temple demolition or mosque construction using prior temple structures were irrelevant to the fundamental question of title (ownership) in a civil trial.
“The determination of title was not, explicitly, within the remit of ASI,” the court articulated in its 2019 ruling.
Furthermore, the court clarified: “A finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI. Between the 12th century to which the underlying structure is dated, and the construction of the mosque in the 16th century, there is an intervening period of four centuries. No evidence has been placed on the record in relation to the course of human history between the 12th and 16th centuries. No evidence is available in a case of this antiquity on the cause of destruction of the underlying structure; whether the pre-existing structure was demolished for the construction of the mosque. Title to the land must be decided on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial.”