Muralidhar Decries 'Institutional Amnesia,' Questions SC's Ayodhya Verdict - 2025-09-10

Muralidhar Decries “Institutional Amnesia,” Questions Supreme Court's Ayodhya Verdict in Scathing Critique

NEW DELHI – In a powerful and incisive critique, former High Court Chief Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar has expressed profound disappointment with the Supreme Court's handling of the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute, questioning the "tearing hurry" to deliver a judgment on merits when a mediated settlement was reportedly within reach. Speaking at the AG Noorani Memorial Lecture, the eminent jurist deconstructed the 2019 verdict, citing "astounding" logical inconsistencies, the failure to pursue contempt proceedings for the mosque's demolition, and the subsequent dilution of legal principles established in the judgment itself.

Dr. Muralidhar's address provides a significant scholarly and judicial examination of a landmark case that, he argued, has become a "turning point in how we as a judiciary responded" to tests of secularism.

The Lost Opportunity of Mediation

A central pillar of Dr. Muralidhar's critique was the Supreme Court's apparent abandonment of the mediation process it had initiated. He highlighted that on the very day the five-judge bench reserved its judgment, the court-appointed mediation panel—comprising Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu—reported that a settlement had been reached with key parties.

According to Dr. Muralidhar, the Sunni Waqf Board had agreed to relinquish its claims subject to certain conditions. However, the Court declined to accept the settlement, citing the lack of signatures from all parties. This, he suggested, was a departure from the judiciary's typical encouragement of settlements.

"There seems to have been a conscious decision not to push this mediation process forward," he opined. "So if they (judges) had sat with the parties, may be, some negotiated settlement, that option could have been considered."

He lamented that the 2019 bench did not actively pursue the hope for a negotiated settlement that the Supreme Court itself had expressed in the earlier Ismail Farooqui case. The haste to conclude the matter, he argued, was inexplicable, except for one looming deadline.

"What was the tearing hurry? Why could they not have waited a bit longer?" Dr. Muralidhar asked. "The only explanation is November 9, 2019 - the date of the verdict - is about ten days before the retirement of Justice Gogoi. This is an issue which was too big to be hurried through."

"Authorless Judgment" and "Astounding" Conclusions

Dr. Muralidhar also delved into the structural and logical frailties he perceived in the voluminous judgment. He pointed out the anomaly of an "authorless judgment," a departure from convention where the authoring judge is named. He also raised sharp questions about the anonymous "addendum," which discussed the faith and belief of devotees, noting that its observations appeared to conflict with findings in the main judgment.

"He said that there was no 'logical outcome' in the judgment and the conclusions did not square up with the findings, which he termed as 'astounding'," the source reported. This disconnect between the evidence assessed and the final relief granted—awarding the disputed site for the construction of a temple—remains a point of significant debate in legal circles.

Furthermore, he questioned the court's suo motu direction to the Central Government to frame a scheme for temple construction, a relief he noted was not sought by any of the litigating parties. This judicial overstep, in his view, added another layer of concern to the verdict's legal foundation.

"Institutional Amnesia" and the Contempt Case

Perhaps the most stinging criticism was reserved for the Supreme Court's handling of the contempt of court proceedings initiated against then-Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh and other officials. They were charged with violating undertakings given to the court to protect the Babri Masjid before its demolition in 1992.

Dr. Muralidhar recounted how this crucial matter of accountability was left pending for nearly three decades. When it was finally taken up in 2022, the Court closed the proceedings, remarking, "What is the point in flogging a dead horse?"

“This is institutional amnesia, which in my view is unforgivable, of an act which the Supreme Court found was an egregious crime," he stated forcefully. This failure to enforce its own authority and hold state actors accountable for what the Ayodhya judgment itself termed a "serious violation of the rule of law" represents, in Dr. Muralidhar's view, a grave institutional lapse.

The Eroding Legacy of the Places of Worship Act

Beyond the Ayodhya case itself, Dr. Muralidhar expressed deep concern over the judiciary's inconsistent application of the principles surrounding the Places of Worship Act, 1991. While the 2019 Ayodhya judgment devoted several pages to upholding the Act's importance as a pillar of secularism, he argued that subsequent judicial actions have effectively diluted its mandate.

He pointed specifically to the Gyanvapi case, where the Supreme Court in August 2023 permitted a "non-invasive survey" of the mosque premises.

"You have not stuck to your own order and you allowed it to get diluted. And that has serious repercussions," he warned. "Today, there are 17 suits all over the country... You could have avoided all this by saying - we will not entertain any fresh suits."

This judicial inconsistency, he suggested, has opened the floodgates for a multitude of new disputes challenging the status of religious sites, creating the very kind of conflict the Act was designed to prevent. He did, however, commend former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna for imposing a temporary halt on such suits in December 2023, urging the court to swiftly decide on the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship Act to bring finality to the issue.

Dr. Muralidhar's comprehensive critique serves as a crucial reminder for the legal community that the Ayodhya verdict's legacy is far from settled. His analysis challenges the judiciary to reflect on its role in safeguarding constitutional values, maintaining logical consistency, and ensuring that its pronouncements are not just words on a page but enforceable principles that guide the nation's legal and political future.