In a recent interview with former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, the so-called “independent journalist” Sreenivasan Jain repeated old criticisms about the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya Ram Mandir verdict.

He alleged that the judgment rewarded the “illegal act” he claimed Hindus committed when asserting their claim on the inner courtyard (the area where the disputed structure stood), and that it “punished” the Muslim side, which—he said—did not contest or claim the outer courtyard (where Ram Lalla Virajmaan was placed in a temporary temple).

Jain pressed this argument, stating:

“The idea that the inner courtyard contested was also a result of the Hindus committing illegal acts like desecration, asserting their rights and creating disturbances; the fact that the Muslims didn’t do that in the outer courtyard, didn’t contest it, then becomes almost a ground to punish them; the fact that you (Muslims) didn’t put up a fight while Hindus did actually weighs against the Muslims, is one critical reading of the verdict.”

He framed the logic thus: because the Muslims stayed silent in the outer courtyard, while Hindus actively litigated the inner courtyard, this unequal assertion of rights justified a judgment against the Muslim side.

Original desecration was mosque built over temple: Chandrachud

In his reply, the ex-Chief Justice Chandrachud reminded Jain and his critics that the origin of the dispute itself lies in a deeper act: the building of a mosque on the remains of a Hindu temple. He urged that this original act of desecration cannot simply be ignored. He responded to Jain’s claim:

“When you said that the Hindus were desecrating the inner courtyard, what about the fundamental act of desecration, the very erection of the mosque, we forget all that happened in history. Now, once you accept that that happened in history, and we had evidence in the form of archaeological evidence, how can you shut your eyes?”

Chandrachud reminded that he was part of the Constitutional bench which decided the Ayodhya dispute, giving weight to his words.

Critics choose history selectively, ex-CJI argues

Chandrachud did not hold back in confronting those who claimed the judiciary acted in a biased manner by siding with Hindus. He accused them of taking a selective view of history. He said:

“What is really being done by many of these commentators … is that they have a selective view of history. They ignore evidence of what happened beyond a certain period of history and start looking at the evidence which is of a more comparable nature.”

When Jain asserted, “I thought the judgment found that there was no evidence that the underlying structure was necessarily demolished to build the mosque because there was a gap of several centuries between the underlying structure and the mosque,” Chandrachud was firm in his rebuttal:

“There was adequate evidence from the archaeological excavation…there is evidence in the form of the archaeological report.”

He accused some critics of cherry-picking historical facts to fit their own narrative. He said:

“Let’s face it. Ultimately, people who have criticised the judgment want to ignore the fundamental history of the mosque, and then look at the more comparative history, at selective elements of that history that support what they postulate.”

Chandrachud insisted that the Court’s verdict was grounded in law and evidence, not faith or sentiment. He affirmed:

“The Supreme Court’s judgment applies the conventional yardstick of determining adverse possession. It’s on the basis of the evidence and the conventional yardsticks which we have applied that we have come to this conclusion. The criticism that the judgment is based on faith and not evidence is the criticism by the people, I dare say, who have not read the judgment.”

https://t.co/WMJvxRSUYm Same old Marxist strategy of selective quoting of facts. Nothing changed with your attitude. I've documented Marxist Historians' lies and their changing attitudes in this video. — Itiha (@itiha29) September 24, 2025

The logic of ‘punishment’ of Muslim side questioned

Jain’s claim that the Muslim side was “punished” for not asserting their claim in the disputed area is challenged by Chandrachud. He pointed out the absurdity: what act would better qualify as a “claim” than the existence of the mosque itself, built on land that — according to the judgment — did not even belong to the Muslims? He noted that across India there are many similar instances where Muslim claims exist over structures built atop ruins of Hindu temples. These serve as evidence that Muslims did not refrain from making claims historically.

He also argued that this is not the only time unfounded doubts have been raised against the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ayodhya case. Some academics and historians, he said, deliberately propagate a “whitewashed version of history” to favour the mosque argument.

Long legal struggle, evidence, and final verdict

Chandrachud reminded that the battle to reclaim Ram Janmabhoomi spanned many decades and passed through multiple courts. During this time, both the Hindu and Muslim sides had full chance to present their arguments and evidence. After a long struggle that began in 1528—the year the mosque was constructed—the Supreme Court ultimately decided in 2019 that the disputed site belonged to Lord Ram. That decision came after a review of voluminous evidence and detailed hearing from both sides. The judgement bench itself included a Muslim judge, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

The Supreme Court accepted the report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which confirmed the presence of a Hindu structure beneath the Mosque. It also accepted documentary and historical evidence that Hindus always held the site as sacred. The addendum further reinforced that Hindu beliefs about the sanctity and identity of the site were long held.

Historical evidence in favour of Ram Janmabhoomi

An addendum to the Supreme Court judgment—authored by an unnamed judge—delved deeper into Hindu beliefs about Ram Janmabhoomi. This addendum cited several historical sources: Ain-i-Akbari, travel accounts by William Finch, works by Jesuit missionary Father Joseph Tieffenthaler, and the Janma Sakhies recording Guru Nanak’s visit to Ayodhya. These, the addendum argued, reinforced that the site was recognized through centuries as the birthplace of Lord Ram.

Ain-i-Akbari

The Ain-i-Akbari was a 16th-century Persian record compiled by Mughal Emperor Akbar’s court historian Abu’l Fazl. In its pages, it refers to Ayodhya as the abode of Ramachandra, whom it identifies as an Avatar (incarnation of Vishnu) and describes Ayodhya as an ancient, revered site. The document further states that during the Treta Yuga, on the ninth day of the light half of the month of Chaitra, Lord Ram was born to Kausalya, wife of Raja Dasaratha, in the city of Ayodhya.

Accounts of William Finch

William Finch was an English merchant working with the East India Company during the reign of Emperor Jehangir. In his travel writings, he mentioned “the ruins of Ramachandra’s castle and houses” as well as the belief among Indians that Ramachandra was born, who took flesh upon him.”

Accounts of Father Joseph Tieffenthaler

Father Joseph Tieffenthaler, a Jesuit missionary who visited India between 1766 and 1771, wrote a detailed historical and geographical account (originally in Latin, later translated). The English translation of his work was submitted in court as Ext. 133 (Suit-5), and the Supreme Court, in its addendum, drew three key conclusions from it:

1. “First, that Emperor Aurengzebe got the fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a Muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same place. It further states that fourteen black stone pillars of 5 spans high, which had existed at the site of the fortress, are seen there. Twelve of these pillars now support the interior arcades of the mosque. Two (of these 12) are placed at the entrance of the cloister.”

2. “Second that, on the left is seen a square box raised 5 inches above the ground, with borders made of lime, with a length of more than 5 ells and a maximum width of about 4 ells, which is called Bedi (i.e. the ‘cradle’) by the Hindus. The reason for the faith and belief was also that there was a house where Beschan (Vishnu) was born in the form of Ram.”

3. “Third, that Aurengzebe or Babar got this place razed in order to deny the noble people the opportunity of practising their superstitions. However, there still exists some superstitious cult in some place or other. Since in the place where the native house of Ram existed, the Hindus go around 3 times and prostrate on the floor.”

These observations, the addendum maintained, support the notion that a sacred Hindu structure existed before the mosque.

Guru Nanak’s visit to Ayodhya

The addendum also refers to the Janma Sakhies, which record that Guru Nanak visited Ayodhya in 1510 AD to seek Darshan of Ram Janma Bhumi, well before the mosque was built in 1528. This, the judge argued, indicates that the site was already considered the birthplace of Ram by pilgrims and believers. The addendum further notes that in British colonial documents, the mosque was often called the “Janma Sthan Mosque,” suggesting that official records regarded it as constructed on the birthplace of Lord Ram. Its conclusion reads:

“It is thus concluded on the conclusion that faith and belief of Hindus since prior to construction of Mosque and subsequent thereto has always been that Janmaasthan of Lord Ram is the place where Babri Mosque has been constructed which faith and belief is proved by documentary and oral evidence discussed above.”

Through this careful layering of archaeological, historical, documentary, and oral evidence, the addendum reinforces the Hindu belief that the disputed site was always seen—and accepted—as the birthplace of Lord Ram.