Ayodhya Verdict: Why Did Justice Nariman Recuse Himself Instead Of Preventing A 'Travesty' Of Justice?

Justice (retd) Rohinton F Nariman, who recently spoke out against the Supreme Court’s November 2019 verdict on the Ayodhya dispute, had the opportunity to decisively influence the verdict as a member of the bench, but he chose to recuse himself from the hearing. 

Speaking at an event in New Delhi, the former Supreme Court judge called the apex court’s judgment on the issue, delivered by a five-judge bench, a “rambling, 1000-page judgment” through which he had ‘gone through carefully’. He chose to highlight that the SC, based on the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) reports, had said that the structure beneath disputed the structure in Ayodhya was a “Shaivite temple”, and recent layers revealed even a “Hindu temple” but the SC had not said there existed a “Ram temple” beneath the structure. This was an important point, according to him. The fact that it proved that the disputed Islamic structure was built on top of a Hindu structure does not find a mention in his talk. 

He continues in his speech: “One other very, very important fact that throughout this whole exercise [SC adjudication on the Ayodhya case] we are also told that every single time it’s the Hindu side that has done something contrary to the rule of law. . .

". . .So ultimately, we find that a great—at least in my humble opinion—a great travesty of justice was that secularism was not given its due at all by these judgments.”

Nariman then went on to speak on what the SC judgment spoke of the Places of Worship Act before concluding his speech by giving a call for ‘tolerance’. 

In his address of about an hour, Nariman spoke on the Ram Janmabhoomi case and its judgment for more than 20 minutes. His view of it, in his own words, was that it was a 'travesty' of justice. However, Nariman himself had the opportunity to prevent this 'travesty' when he was serving in the Supreme Court. 

Nariman was elevated as an SC judge in 2014 and served till 2021. In this time, Nariman had recused himself from hearing any matter related to the Ayodhya dispute and from any bench meant to hear Ayodhya-related cases, including the five-judge formed and headed then CJI Gogoi which ultimately delivered the verdict.

Had he sat on the five-judge bench that delivered the final verdict on the issue in 2019, he most likely would have dissented against the majority opinion. That in itself would have made national headlines and may well have forced the then CJI to defer the judgment in the case on the grounds that the Supreme Court cannot project a divided opinion on arguably the most important legal case in the history of India.

Note that the judgment in the case was per curiam, it was delivered without the name of the author judge, so as to convey the unanimity of the bench. 

Given these facts, it is likely Justice Nariman could well have decisively influenced the Ayodhya case. However, he chose to recuse himself then and is now speaking against the judgment five years later. 

The question is—why did he recuse himself?