On October 20, 2024, while speaking at a public event in Maharashtra, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said that “very often, we have cases to adjudicate, but we don’t arrive at a solution. Something similar happened during the Ayodhya (Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute), which was before me for three months… I sat before the deity and told him he needs to find a solution… Believe me, if you have faith, God will always find a way.” While Justice Chandrachud, like any other citizen, is free to practice his religious beliefs privately, his personal faith on a particular religion should not influence the judicial process of delivering justice. His confession of a religious basis for his verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute is neither legally defensible nor concomitant with the constitutional foundations of justice in India. Like the concept of divine justice, Dr. Chandrachud’s verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute is arbitrary and failed to punish the perpetrators who demolished the historic Babri Masjid. Instead, the vandals were effectively rewarded for dismantling this significant monument. His judicial confession not only reveals the authors of anonymous judgement but also validates ideology of Hindutva politics, which not only disregards the Indian Constitution’s secular foundation but also aims to reshape it into a distinctly Hindu framework rooted in a Brahminical social, cultural, religious and economic order based on caste hierarchy.
All judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts take constitutional oath under Schedule III, Articles 124(6) and 219 of the Indian Constitution, committing to deliver justice without fear or favour, in accordance with the laws of the land, and to uphold the Constitution. There is no room for blind faith in divine justice within the Indian Constitution. Dr. Chandrachud has undermined both his oath and the Constitution of India. As a citizen of India, he has a constitutional duty to promote and follow scientific temper, humanism, and the spirit of inquiry and reform, as outlined in Article 51A of the Indian Constitution. Divine justice lacks scientific temper, and divine jurisprudence is devoid of humanism. Therefore, Justice Dr. Chandrachud has failed to embody the ideals of an exemplary citizen. Justice Dr. Chandrachud’s disclosure represents a setback for the legal processes and institutions in the country.
There is no inherent issue in invoking religion or associating God with justice to enrich the moral framework within which justice is delivered. Indian freedom fighters like Gandhi and Tilak, for example, used religion to inspire mass movements against British colonial rule. The Indian anti-colonial struggle attracted people from all faiths to unite in the fight for justice and the nation’s independence. Similarly, Greek philosophers leveraged religion and instrumentalise the concept of God to promote justice more effectively. However, religion itself cannot serve as the foundation of justice. There is no divine power ensuring justice. If a god or many gods truly delivered justice, crime and injustice would not exist in the world.
Revolutionary movements led by working people have historically established nation-states, constitutions, laws, and legal frameworks aimed at delivering justice grounded in material evidence and free from discrimination or dominance by the powerful. However, the commercialisation of legal and judicial processes has weakened these institutions. The cost of seeking justice in the courts has become prohibitively expensive for working people, who often cannot afford the legal support necessary to pursue justice. Meanwhile, those with wealth can manipulate judicial outcomes by hiring powerful lawyers, leaving the working class struggling even to claim basic citizenship rights.
Capitalism and its market led culture based on money has not only strained the legal system but has also normalised and universalised Eurocentric jurisprudence, often framing cultural relativism as a basis for claiming individual and community rights rooted in religion, culture, and tradition. This approach has opened the door for reactionary and market-driven forces to exert both majoritarian and minority influence within judicial processes, leading to discrimination, domination and bias. Justice Dr. Chandrachud’s actions are thus not an isolated judicial aberration; rather, they signal the infiltration of Hindutva political patronage and religious right-wing ideologies into various Indian institutions that are meant to operate independently, upholding secular, scientific, and constitutional principles to serve the public good without bias.
As citizens of India struggling to counter the forward march of Hindutva politics within electoral democracy and uphold constitutional and secular values in governance, the former Chief Justice of India, Dr Chandrachud’s claim of a divine origin for his judicial verdicts represents a significant step backward. However, a divine basis for justice is not concomitant with the requirements of a secular judicial process as outlined in the Indian Constitution. Judges, as individuals, are free to follow their religious beliefs, but religious faith has no role in the judicial process of delivering justice. The ancient concept of divine justice holds no relevance in a constitutional democracy like India. Divine justice is not true justice. The twin foundations of divine justice—ignorance and fear—serve as tools to domesticate the masses, historically wielded by ruling classes to assert control over people.
In modern judicial systems shaped by democratic, secular, and constitutional principles, concepts of divine justice have no place. If gods could deliver justice, there would be no need for contemporary legal systems. As Greek historian Angelos Chaniotis writes “a clever-dick invented the gods” to prevent crimes and deliver justice. But crimes keep increasing over time and delivery of justice is either delayed or denied. The divine men, their gods and goddesses, feudal, ancient and religious jurisprudence have failed to deliver justice for the people.
The struggle for establishing a just, secular, constitutional, and unbiased legal system depends on mass movements rooted in science, reason, and secularism. There is no divine alternative. Beyond the boundaries of retributive judicial system, former Chief Justice Dr. Chandrachud can redeem himself by embracing a scientific temper, humanism, and a spirit of inquiry and reform after his retirement as a citizen of India. By joining a mass movement dedicated to judicial reforms ensuring justice for all without fear or favour, he could contribute meaningfully to a more equitable society and redeem himself as an ideal citizen by fulfilling the constitutional duties outlined in Article 51A of the Indian Constitution. There is always time to change and walk in the path of justice.