By Nalini Sharma
Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has discussed in detail the controversial, long-standing Ayodhya dispute which was concluded during his tenure and the surcharge of emotions that he went through during the hearings and the writing of the judgment.
The matter was heard at length with 40-days of continuous arguments from all sides before a five-judge bench headed by Justice Gogoi as the Chief Justice. During this time, multiple attempts were also made to delay the hearing for as long as possible.
Justice Gogoi recalls, “The hearing dragged on until fireworks emanated from Dhavan who, during Jain’s arguments, looked at me and said that these cases could not be heard in the manner that I would ‘normally’ hear cases coming before me. This was without any provocation, and only because we had urged Jain to step up the pace of his arguments. Everything will have to be considered and everybody will have to be given a full hearing, Dhavan said. All documents would have to be scrutinised. Dhavan indicated that he may himself take about six weeks to complete his arguments. At one point, he also mentioned that none of the judges except Justice Chandrachud had either read the papers or understood the case. I requested all my brother judges to remain silent and not to respond as it could have resulted in scuttling of the hearing. Such incidents kept occurring in court frequently and increased with time. But the hearing continued.”
Justice Gogoi mentions an interesting incident that occurred on the last day of the hearing. At around noon during the hearing, Justice Gogoi received a slip of paper from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court stating that a representative of one of the parties to the Ayodhya matter was seeking permission to enter the Supreme Court. “Justice Bobde, who was to my right, and Justice Chandrachud, on my left, asked about the note as receipt of notes from registrars in the midst of hearing by a five-judge Bench is somewhat unusual. Since it pertained to an administrative matter, I told them accordingly.” Justice Gogoi writes.
Justice Gogoi says he sent a handwritten reply back to the Secretary General saying that “under no circumstances was the person to be allowed entry” into the Court. “A bona fide visitor to the Supreme Court in connection with his case is always entitled to a visitor’s pass through his Advocateon-Record. Since this person was approaching the Registry or the Secretary General for entry, I sensed that his objective was not well-intended but aimed at disrupting the hearing. Had he been able to do that, the court proceedings would have been affected and the case may have had to be adjourned.” Justice Gogoi apprehended.
The former CJI has also spoken at length about the toll that the long and tedious Ayodhya hearings took on him. “I often carried the surcharged emotions home. My wife was the only person with whom I could share the turmoil within me and lay bare the highly disturbed man behind the cool and calm exterior exhibited in the courtroom. One particular day, I refused to go to court. Rupanjali eventually won with her enormous persuasive powers. On another day, though she succeeded in pushing me out of the house (5, Krishna Menon Marg), once I reached the Court, I refused to budge from the chamber. Justice Bobde called off the hearing that day, telling the other judges that I was unwell.” Justice Gogoi reveals.
The judge has also offered insights, for the first time, into how the judgment was authored by the five judges. He says that though the judges used to discuss arguments of the day almost daily after the hearings, it was not until the last few days of the hearings that unanimity of opinion started building up that the land should go in favour of the Hindu parties for constructing the Ram temple and the Muslim parties should be allowed a five-acre alternative plot in a suitable and prominent place in Ayodhya for building a mosque. It was Justice Gogoi who suggested to the other judges that not only should the judgment be unanimous but that there should also be only one judgment and the name of the author should not be disclosed. Three draft judgments were authored, one of which was by Justice Gogoi and then the draft judgments were handed over to a third judge for editing and merger of the drafts together.
This story first appeared on indiatoday.in