Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s comments on seeking divine intervention during the Ayodhya ruling highlight the delicate balance between personal faith and constitutional duties in India’s democracy. Vinta Nanda writes…

Photography:Vinta Nanda

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud's statement about praying for divine intervention during the Ayodhya dispute ruling raises concerns about the role of personal faith in judicial decisions. This commentary explores the implications of mixing faith with constitutional responsibilities, questioning how majoritarianism and religious sentiments might influence justice in India’s pluralistic society. At a time when political and social tensions are high, this article calls to focus to protecting the balance of secularism and democracy.

Faith, Tradition, and the Illusion of Safety in Times of Change

In today’s rapidly changing world, driven by technological advances and marked by political divisiveness, the role of personal faith in public life has become increasingly contentious. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s recent comments about seeking divine intervention during the Ayodhya dispute ruling in 2019 offer an insightful lens through which we can explore the tension between faith and constitutional duties. His statement that he prayed for a solution highlights a delicate and complex issue: how do we reconcile personal beliefs with the secular responsibilities of public office? This question is not just about individual leaders but reflects a broader societal phenomenon, especially in vulnerable moments when political unrest and the suppression of dissent create a desire for the familiar and the safe.

In times of political upheaval and social uncertainty, people naturally gravitate towards what they know—faith, tradition, and community—as anchors of security. But this impulse often overrides the rational recognition that change is both inevitable and necessary. As we explore this issue, the critical question arises: why, in such times, do people prefer the comfort of the predictable over the possibilities offered by the unknown? Why is it easier for both men and women to cling to the mundane rather than explore the richness of life’s unpredictability?   

The Comfort of the Predictable in a Chaotic World

Human beings are wired to seek patterns and familiarity, especially during periods of intense change. Psychologists often refer to this as cognitive ease—our brain’s preference for what is known, because it requires less mental effort. In a world where rapid technological progress and socio-political instability seem to bring new disruptions every day, many find refuge in traditions and religious practices that provide a sense of continuity.

When leaders, particularly those in high positions of authority, invoke faith, they tap into this psychological need for certainty. Chief Justice Chandrachud’s statement about praying for divine guidance is more than a personal admission of belief; it reflects an acknowledgment of how overwhelming modern challenges can be, even for those in positions of great power. By turning to God, he symbolically reassures the public that faith offers answers where logic and reason might falter.

This reliance on faith becomes especially significant in a charged political atmosphere where dissent is silenced, and majoritarian forces dominate the discourse. In such environments, clinging to tradition becomes a form of passive resistance. The alternative—embracing change, stepping outside comfort zones, and facing life’s unpredictability—demands immense emotional and intellectual energy. For many, confronting uncertainty head-on is far more terrifying than the comforts of tradition, which provide a soothing, if illusory, sense of control.

Yet, it is precisely in times like these that society must resist the temptation to retreat into the predictable. The unknown may be daunting, but it is also where growth, innovation, and the richness of life reside. When faced with the choice between confronting life’s uncertainties or retreating into familiar patterns, most people opt for the latter. The predictable asks little of the mind or the heart, offering a comforting cocoon in the face of overwhelming change.

Tradition and Majoritarianism: A Shield Against Insecurity

The world today is marked by profound transformations—how we communicate, work, and live is all changing rapidly. While some thrive in this environment of progress, larger populations, particularly the middle classes, often feel threatened. In such times of upheaval, people frequently turn to religion and community not only for comfort but for a sense of identity and belonging.

Faith-based practices and communal rituals serve as psychological shields against the alienating forces of modernization. They provide a sense of consistency, a steadying force in a world that feels increasingly unmoored. For those overwhelmed by the pace of change, traditions offer stability, grounding them in a larger narrative that transcends individual uncertainty. This is why, in moments of political and social volatility, religion and tradition are so easily wielded by political leaders to consolidate power.

Historically, tradition has always held the strongest appeal in times of instability. Philosopher Edmund Burke, writing in the wake of the French Revolution, argued that people need established social structures to maintain order and prevent chaos. Rapid change, he believed, could destabilize societies, leaving individuals adrift. Today, in an increasingly polarized world, the pull toward tradition serves a similar purpose. People, particularly those marginalized by technological or economic progress, find solace in the continuity offered by faith and community practices.

This is where majoritarianism, the tendency to favour the majority’s beliefs, becomes especially dangerous. In a pluralistic society like India, majoritarianism erodes the very fabric of democracy, suppressing minority voices and stifling dissent. Leaders who promote majoritarian narratives often exploit the public’s fear of the unknown, encouraging people to cling to the past rather than face the challenges of an uncertain future. In doing so, they limit society’s capacity for growth and innovation, entrenching divisions and preventing meaningful progress.

Embracing the Sea of Change: A Call to Action

The real fear is not in change itself, but in the prospect of being left behind. The human spirit is naturally inclined toward growth and exploration, yet many choose the safer path because it offers the illusion of control. Holding on to old ways feels easier than sailing into uncharted waters, even though the adventure of the unknown promises richer experiences and possibilities.

The fear of letting go of the predictable is ultimately a fear of losing one’s sense of identity and belonging. Tradition ties people to a larger narrative, giving them a sense of security. But in clinging to the predictable, they miss out on the transformative potential that diversity and change offer. The greatest challenge, in times of progress and transformation, is not to let the fear of the unknown overshadow the opportunities for growth.

Societies that remain stuck in tradition and majoritarian beliefs risk being left behind. Those that embrace change, however, are more likely to thrive in the long run. The true adventure lies in recognizing that while the sea may be unpredictable, it offers endless possibilities for discovery. Letting go of the safety of harbours is the only way to explore the richness that life has to offer.

A Dangerous Precipice: Justice, Faith, and Democracy

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s statement carries profound implications for India’s constitutional democracy. When a figure of such influence invokes personal faith in matters of judicial decision-making, it raises troubling questions about the impartiality and secularism that are the cornerstones of the rule of law. India’s Constitution is not merely a legal document; it is a testament to the values of equality, justice, and freedom for all citizens, irrespective of their faith. Relying on personal beliefs to resolve issues like the Ayodhya dispute threatens to blur the essential line between personal faith and professional duty, between faith and reason.

Such statements breach not only the secular principles that govern the judiciary but also serve as a warning to democratic forces. When justice is perceived as biased or swayed by majoritarian sentiment, the public’s trust in the legal system erodes. When faith in justice falters, democracy itself is placed on trial. This is a dangerous precipice, one that can easily lead to unrest, deepen divisions, and even risk the disintegration of a union as diverse as India.

The scales of justice must remain balanced, un-swayed by personal belief, and rooted firmly in the principles of the Constitution. If they are not, India’s pluralistic identity could be at risk. This moment serves as a clarion call for defenders of democracy to remain vigilant, ensuring that the rule of law is preserved for all, not just the majority.

Mahatma Gandhi often spoke about the role of faith in public life, yet he differentiated between personal faith and public duty. While his commitment to non-violence (ahimsa) was deeply rooted in his personal religious beliefs, he was careful to frame his vision for India’s future as one that welcomed all religions under a secular, democratic framework. He believed that majoritarianism, where the beliefs of the majority overshadow the rights of the minority, would be disastrous for India’s plural society.