The Ayodhya dispute is perhaps one of the most important matters to be decided in the Supreme Court. Its importance stems from the immense religious and political implications the verdict would have for the lives of ordinary Indians.

Since 1949, when the first title suit was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad, several judges have presided over this contentious matter. Today, it all came down to five judges of the Supreme Court to finally resolve the dispute. So, who are these judges?

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi

Gogoi is the first judge from the Northeast to become the Chief Justice of India. He succeeded Dipak Misra, who was publicly criticised at an unprecedented January 2018 press conference by four of the court’s senior judges, including Gogoi, for his administration.

Speaking at the press conference, Jasti Chelameswar, who has since retired, said the four judges were “left with no choice but to communicate with the nation” after they failed to convince Misra on various issues. “The four of us are convinced that unless the institution is preserved, democracy will not survive.”

It thus fell upon Gogoi to restore the judiciary’s credibility. But he seems to have failed to restore the image of the judiciary. Among other things, Gogoi will be remembered for charges of sexual harassment levelled against him by a former staffer. The CJI was eventually cleared of all charges after a committee of three sitting Supreme Court judges found “no substance” in the woman’s complaint.

As the chief justice, Gogoi has been fairly outspoken. “We need not only independent judges and noisy journalists, but even independent journalists and sometimes noisy judges,” he had in his Ramnath Goenka lecture in June last year. More recently, speaking at a book launch, Gogoi defended the controversial National Register of Citizens in Assam. The national discourse has seen the emergence of “armchair commentators” who present “a distorted picture”, the CJI complained. “Challenges were thrown at vital initiatives that were aimed at ushering in a new process for a peaceful era. He had led the bench that monitored the updation and release of the NRC. In 2015, Gogoi controversially held former top court judge Markandey Katju in contempt for making allegations against him.  

In the top court, Gogoi has a reputation of being decisive and conducting his court with a firm hand. This was evident during the marathon hearings in the Ayodhya dispute where he maintained a gruelling schedule and wrapped up all arguments in 40 days.

Gogoi retires on November 17. But before then, he is expected to deliver verdicts in several other crucial cases – the Rafale review, decision on whether the CJI’s office is covered by the Right to Information Act, Sabarimala judgement review, constitutional validity of the Finance Act of 2017 that was passed as a Money Bill, and the contempt case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for his “Chowkidar Chor Hai” comment.  

Gogoi was born in an illustrious family in Assam’s Dibrugarh. His father was the former chief minister of Assam Keshab Chandra Gogoi. He studied for a master’s in history at St Stephen’s College and law at Delhi University. He then returned to Guwahati in 1978 and set up his practice. Gogoi was appointed a permanent judge of the Gauhati High Court in 2001, a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2010, and elevated to the Supreme Court in 2012. In the seven years since, he has delivered over 640 judgements, 25 of them as part of constitution benches.

Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde

Bobde takes over as the 47th Chief Justice of India on November 18. He’s set to serve for 18 months until April 2021. Bobde, like his predecessor, will inherit a judiciary with a broken image.

Bobde led the committee of sitting judges that cleared Gogoi of the charges of sexual harassment. The manner in which the panel conducted the proceedings came under criticism. In fact, Justice DY Chandrachud wrote to the panel arguing for the inclusion of an external member, even suggesting three names for the job – retired apex court judges Ruma Pal, Sujata Manohar and Ranjana Desai who he described as “apolitical and above board”. Several women from different sections of the society also wrote to the committee that its constitution was in “complete violation” of all established norms. They said the composition of the committee was tilted against the women staffer who had accused Gogoi of sexual harassment.

Though Bobde did not participate in the historic presser by four judges. But in that hour of crisis, he emerged as a “peacemaker” among his fellow judges.

A few months later, in May 2018, he was part of the constitution bench that heard a petition challenging Vice President Venkaiah Naidu’s rejection of an Opposition motion seeking to impeach then CJI Misra.

Throughout his six years in the apex court, Bobde has been part of several historic judgements. In 2017, he was one of the nine judges on the constitution bench that held privacy to be a fundamental right.

Bobde was part of the bench, along with then CJI TS Thakur and now retired Justice AK Sikri, that banned the sale of fireworks in the National Capital Region to combat air pollution. He also upheld the basic tenets of human rights when the bench he was part of clarified that the lack of an Aadhar card could not be grounds to deprive Indian citizens basic services and government subsidies.

In 2016, Bobde was on the bench that rejected a plea challenging the discharge of Amit Shah, now Home Minister, in the 2005 Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case.

Born in Nagpur, Maharashtra, Bobde hails from a family of lawyers. He graduated from Nagpur University with a law degree and enrolled in the state Bar Council in 1978. After practicing as a lawyer for 21 years, Bobde was appointed an additional judge of the Bombay High Court in March 2000. Twelve years later, Bobde helmed the Madhya Pradesh High Court as its chief justice. In April 2013, he was appointed to the Supreme Court.

Justice Dhananjay Y Chandrachud

Chandrachud has always been unafraid to speak his mind. He has not shied away from being the sole dissenter in judgements of importance, nor has he hesitated in calling a spade a spade.

He was one of the few judges who objected to the manner in which the panel set up to look into charges of sexual harassment against Gogoi conducted its proceedings. In his letter to the panel, he suggested that it include external members and recommended three retired women judges of the apex court.

Last year, Chandrachud was part of the top court benches that delivered powerful verdicts in almost a dozen constitutional cases. These included two verdicts where he penned dissenting opinions that were scathing indictments of the government.

In two of his dissents – the Aadhaar case and the arrest of activists in the aftermath of the Bhima Koregaon violence – Chandrachud gave higher regard to personal liberty over the Centre’s power to curb fundamental rights in the interest of the public. Chandrachud argued that Aadhar could be used as an “instrument to turn India into a surveillance state”.

During the hearings in the Bhima Koregaon case, Chandrachud observed that “dissent is the safety valve in a democracy; the pressure cooker will burst if you try to muzzle it” and that “liberty cannot be sacrificed at the altar of conjecture” of police or authorities”.

In others, he didn’t shy away from disagreeing with a senior judge and managed the rare feat of disagreeing with CJIs.

More recently, while speaking at an event, Chandrachud responded to a query in light of Justice V Tahilramani’s resignation and observed the need for a “more balanced and nuanced mechanism” to deal with judges accused of impropriety.

Tahilramani, former chief justice of the Madras High Court, resigned when the collegium transferred her to a much smaller high court of Meghalaya.  

At the event – the launch of the book How to Save a Constitutional Democracy by Professor Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Z Huq at the University of Chicago’s Delhi Centre – Chandrachud pointed out that there are currently only two possibilities to deal with erring judges, impeachment or transfer. “Impeachment is not necessarily an answer in every situation you can think of regarding judicial demeanor,” he observed.

Asked to comment on the issue of the independence of the judiciary and what framework could be adopted to “insulate the judiciary from wanton attacks on its institutional integrity”, he observed that it was “important to understand that you need to trust your judges, you need to trust your courts, because if that element of trust towards the judges and the courts disappears, I think there is a serious problem we are going to have in the democratic setup itself”.

Chandrachud is known to have strong opinions. One would find a separate conclusion or an opinion in most of the verdicts that he has been a part of. Since May 2016, when he was elevated to the Supreme Court, Chandrachud sat with three CJIs, allowing him to be part of several major cases early in his apex court tenure.

In the past three years, Chandrachud has been part of benches that have delivered over 220 judgments. He has deliberated on judgements like Aadhar, privacy, euthanasia, decriminalisation of homosexuality, the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple, adultery, the Hadiya case where a woman was guaranteed the right to choose her partner, among many others.

Chandrachud is most well known for authoring the judgement that held privacy to be a fundamental right. This historical ruling set the stage for decriminalising homosexuality. 

The ADM Jabalpur case and the verdict on adultery were two instances where Chandrachud overruled judgements pronounced by his father, former CJI YV Chandrachud.

Chadrachud senior was the longest serving Chief Justice of India, with a tenure of around seven years. Chandrachud junior, in the privacy judgement, said the ruling in the ADM Jabalpur case by four judges, including his father, was “seriously flawed” and “wrong”.

The 1975 ADM Jabalpur case – also known as the habeas corpus case – is considered to be the darkest chapter in the history of Indian judiciary. A five-judge constitution bench by a four to one majority verdict – Justice HR Khanna was the sole dissenter – ruled that personal liberties could be dispensed with during the Emergency.

Even as his judgements are celebrated, Chandrachud has faced criticism for his verdict in the judge BH Loya matter and the CJI is the master of the roster case.

Chandrachud will don the mantle of the CJI in 2022 for a period of two years. He rose spectacularly through the ranks very early in his career. There was no question that he would become a judge like his father, the question was how soon and “if he would break his father’s record tenure of seven years as CJI”.

Justice Ashok Bhushan

Bhushan appears unassuming and quiet in court. But his assertiveness is reflected in his judgements. Bhushan epitomises the belief that a judge must speak through his judgments.

Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer made it onto the Ayodhya bench after it was rejigged following Justice UU Lalit’s recusal.  

Bhushan and Nazeer were members of the bench that, by a two to one majority in September 27, declined to refer the 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgement to a larger bench. The majority opinion was authored by Bhushan for himself and then CJI Misra. Nazeer, in his dissenting opinion, referred the matter to a larger bench and framed the questions of law that needed consideration.

Bhushan was also one of the three judges who were briefed by the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary Rajendra Kumar Tiwari and Director General of Police Om Prakash Singh on the preparedness of the state ahead of the Ayodhya verdict.

Bhushan has been part of important judgements such as the Nirbhaya gangrape case, the AAP vs Delhi lieutenant governor case and the Aadhar verdict. During the hearing on the constitutional validity of Aadhar, Bhushan observed, “So what is wrong with the concept of ‘one nation, one identity’? Are we not all Indians?”

Bhushan was one of the five judges on the constitution bench that responded to senior advocate Kapil Sibal’s submission that citizens ran the risk of being branded “anti-national” if they did not possess an Aadhar card.

In his separate but concurring judgement in the Aadhar matter, Bhushan backed the Centre’s flagship scheme and said it and the UIDAI were empowered to cure defects arising out of Aadhar. He even observed that Aadhar would not become a tool of surveillance for the state.

On July 9, the apex court unanimously dismissed the review pleas and upheld the death penalty for those convicted in the December 2012 gang rape case. In February, an apex court bench comprising Bhushan and now retired Justice AK Sikri delivered a split verdict on the turf war in Delhi between the Aam Aadmi Party and the lieutenant governor.

Bhushan graduated from the Allahabad University with a law degree in 1979, and enrolled in the state bar the same year. He was elevated as a permanent judge of the Allahabad High Court and served as the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court in 2016. Bhushan was elevated to the apex court in May 2016, the same day as his contemporary Chandrachud. He is slated to retire in July 2021.

Justice SA Nazeer  

Nazeer is the only Muslim judge in the Supreme court. He often finds himself on benches that would have an impact on the Muslim population. Nazeer found himself on the Ayodhya bench, along with Bhushan, when it was reformed in the wake of UU Lalit’s recusal.

Both Nazeer and Bhushan were on the three-judge bench that declined to refer the 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment to a larger bench. The 1994 ruling – which allowed the Centre to acquire the disputed 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya – held praying in mosques was not an essential religious practice in Islam. In his dissenting opinion, Nazeer observed, “The contentious observations in Faruqui case have influenced the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment”, referring to the three-way division of land in the 2010 high court verdict.

Nazeer also observed that considering the “constitutional importance” and “significance” of the issue, the Ayodhya matter needed to be considered by a larger bench. He even framed four key questions of law that would need to be looked at by the larger bench.

Nazeer was part of the five judge bench that struck down the practice of instant triple talaq by a majority of three to two. The majority judgement was penned by now retired Justice Kurian Joseph whereas then CJI Khehar and Nazeer found themselves in the minority observing that the practice was equal to other rights and could not be set aside.

Recently, Nazeer was part of the bench that issued a notice to the law ministry on a plea that sought the entry of women in mosques.

Nazeer was one of the nine judges on the bench the held privacy to be a fundamental right. Along with Chelameswar, Nazeer brought in the landmark ruling that required candidates contesting elections, their spouses and dependents to declare the sources of their income at the time of filing nominations. The 2018 verdict was pronounced on a plea by NGO Lok Prahari, which sought amendments to the Representation of People’s Act. 

“Accumulation of wealth in the hands of elected representatives of the people without any known or by questionable sources of income paves way for the rule of mafia substituting the rule of law,” the bench said. This “undue accumulation of wealth in the hands of any individual would not be conducive to the general welfare of the society.”

Nazeer was also part of the bench led by Chelameswar that heard the medical college bribery scam which allegedly involved members of the higher judiciary. This bench had sought the constitution of a bench comprising the five senior-most judges of the court, and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to submit all material and documents relevant to the investigation to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover.

Born in 1958, Nazeer enrolled as an advocate at the Karnataka High Court in 1989. In May 2003, he was appointed as an additional judge of the Karnataka High Court. Thirteen years later, Nazeer was elevated to the Supreme Court.