Introduction: Judges Who Say Judgment Was Delivered With “Divine Or Bovine Intervention” Violate Constitutional Oath Justice Nariman’s Rebuke
When the legal world shakes its head at judges invoking gods, cows, or “divine will” to justify a verdict, the reason, former Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman argues, is simple. At the K.M. Bashir Memorial Lecture, he declared that Judges Who Say Judgment Was Delivered With “Divine Or Bovine Intervention” Violate Constitutional Oath: Justice Nariman has made this crystal clear.
Judges Who Say Judgment Was Delivered With “Divine Or Bovine Intervention” Violate Constitutional Oath by Abandoning Duty Justice Nariman’s Core Message
Justice Nariman’s message didn’t mince words. Judges Who Say Judgment Was Delivered With “Divine Or Bovine Intervention” Violate Constitutional Oath, because their exclusive loyalty should be to the Constitution and the law not fleeting flashes of spiritual inspiration. “Whether divine or bovine intervention, or any other kind of intervention, if a judge delivers a judgment, he is violating his oath to the Constitution,” Nariman bluntly put it, reiterating that faith has no standing in the rational, secular workspace of the judiciary.
Judges Who Say Judgment Was Delivered With “Divine Or Bovine Intervention” Violate Constitutional Oath: Ayodhya-Babri Masjid Reference and the Limits of Faith
Justice Nariman’s sharp critique of judicial recourse to higher powers found contemporary relevance in light of former CJI Chandrachud’s remarks. During the fraught Ayodhya-Babri Masjid proceedings, Chandrachud openly stated that he prayed to God for guidance as the dispute lingered before the bench. For critics and for Nariman’s strict secularism such gestures raise the stakes: Judges Who Say Judgment Was Delivered With “Divine Or Bovine Intervention” Violate Constitutional Oath, because the Constitution does not leave room for supernatural appeals, no matter how weighty the occasion. In Nariman’s view, faith may ground a character, but verdicts must rest solely on law and reason, especially in matters that echo across the collective conscience of the nation
Judges Who Say Judgment Was Delivered With “Divine Or Bovine Intervention” Violate Constitutional Oath: Nariman’s Warning Against Supernatural Justifications
Nariman, deeply versed in the law and diverse religions, explained that Judges Who Say Judgment Was Delivered With “Divine Or Bovine Intervention” Violate Constitutional Oath because personal or collective morality cannot replace constitutional reasoning. “Your personal morality may guide how you interpret the law, but you cannot substitute divine will for judicial reasoning.” Even the faintest suggestion of supernatural influence, to Nariman, tips the scales away from what India’s Constitution is meant to safeguard.
Conclusion: Judges Who Say Judgment Was Delivered With “Divine Or Bovine Intervention” Violate Constitutional Oath Justice Nariman’s Final Caution
For Justice Nariman, this isn’t just about unfortunate wording; it’s about the very foundation of Indian justice. Judges Who Say Judgment Was Delivered With “Divine Or Bovine Intervention” Violate Constitutional Oath: this is his warning and his plea. Whenever the judiciary’s path diverges from constitutional bedrock toward mystical justifications, the legitimacy of verdicts and public faith itself begin to erode. Today, Nariman urges, more than ever, the law alone must light the way.
Author Information:
By Karthikeyan Ganesan, a law student from KKC College of Law, reporting on law and technology for Nyayasphere. Karthikeyan always likes to stay updated with current trends and important information regarding the law and cases across the country.