Former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, has recently sparked nationwide debate with statements that seem to contradict the landmark Supreme Court verdict on the Ram Mandir case. Chandrachud, widely believed to have authored the 2019 judgment, has now publicly questioned certain aspects of the historical narrative surrounding the Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir dispute. His comments have raised critical questions about judicial impartiality and the scope of curative petitions.
 
In simple terms, a curative petition is a rare legal remedy allowing a party to challenge a Supreme Court judgment even after all conventional appeals have been exhausted. It is designed to correct a miscarriage of justice but requires strong, substantiated grounds to be entertained. Legal experts like former Judicial Academy director Professor Mohan Gopal suggest that Chandrachud’s remarks could open the door, at least theoretically, to revisiting the 2019 verdict through this process.
 
The Supreme Court verdict had allocated the disputed land to the Ram Lalla party while directing five acres to the Sunni Waqf Board. The court also acknowledged that placing idols inside the mosque in 1949 and the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 were unlawful acts. Yet, despite these illegalities, the judgment favored the Hindu side, a decision critics argue was influenced more by political and societal pressures than strictly by law.