The last word of the court is just a comment… What did former CJI Chandrachud say on his/her statement on Worship Act?

New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of the country DY Chandrachud is openly expressing his/her opinion after retirement. Speaking at an event, he/she said oral comments made by judges in court are tools to uncover the truth. he/she further said that sometimes the judge has to play the role of the accused’s lawyer to explain the contradictory situation to the lawyer. Any discussion in court has to be understood in the context of the conversation. Questions are asked to lawyers to find out the truth. Speaking at the Times Network India Economic Conclave, the former CJI said that to say that an observation or a dialogue in the court reflects the position of the court would harm the nature of conversation in the court. The former CJI was responding to a question on his/her comments made in the court on May 21, 2022, in the hearing of the Gyanvapi Mosque cases, in which he/she had said that a survey does not violate the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

Chandrachud said that until the court’s final word is printed in the judgment, whatever the court has said is just a comment for that moment. It has no prior value. It cannot be used in any future proceedings. he/she said that if you prevent judges from interacting freely, you are preventing the truth from coming out.

Justice Chandrachud, while hearing an appeal against the Varanasi district court which ordered the survey of Gyanvapi Masjid in May last year, had said, “Suppose there is an Agiyari (fire temple of Parsi people) there.” Suppose there is a cross in the same premises in another section of the Aegis… (the) Act applies to it. Does the presence of aegis make the cross an aegis? Does the presence of the cross make Agiari a place of Christian worship? The bench had said that hence forget this hybrid character, this area of ​​competition. So what does the Act recognise? That the presence of the cross will not make an article of Christianity an article of Zoroastrianism, nor will the presence of an article of Zoroastrianism make it an article of Christianity.