Rohinton Fali Nariman, a former Supreme Court justice, is in the news for his biased criticism and comments on the 2019 Ayodhya Ram Mandir verdict. He called it a “mockery of justice” and a violation of secularism. Speaking at the Ahmadi Foundation’s inaugural lecture, he argued that the verdict disregarded the Places of Worship Act, which freezes the status of religious places as of 15 August 1947. Nariman emphasized that the Constitution requires secularism to look forward, not backward, and warned against suits targeting mosques and dargahs, which he said could lead to communal discord.
Nariman also criticized the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s 1984 karseva movement, labeling it dictatorial and tyrannical. Reflecting on his involvement with cases related to the Babri Masjid demolition, he lamented a 25-year delay in action on FIRs filed in 1992. He accused the Hindu community of acting against the law but overlooked their consistent use of legal avenues to resolve the Ram Janmabhoomi issue.
Nariman expressed disappointment that a mosque was not rebuilt on the disputed site, calling it a “travesty of justice,” and stressed the need to enforce the 1991 Places of Worship Act to ensure tolerance and harmony. He also condemned notices issued for structures built on demolished Hindu temples, suggesting they could incite communal tensions.
But who is the real Rohinton Nariman? Let’s take a look.
Justice Rohinton Nariman holds the unique distinction of being an ordained priest within the Parsi community. Skilled in conducting ceremonies such as weddings and the Navjote ritual—marking a Zoroastrian child’s formal initiation into the faith—he also has the privilege, like other priests in his community, of accessing the sanctum sanctorum, the innermost sacred space of Parsi temples.
Parsi temples also do not permit menstruating women anywhere near the temple, let alone entry.
He is so orthodox that he opposed the construction of the Mumbai metro subway beneath the Parsi Fire Temple, citing concerns that it might carry menstruating women. However, he took an opposing stance in the Sabarimala case, where a Hindu institution was involved. His minority opinion in the Sabarimala review reflected palpable anger and contempt, revealing a striking inconsistency in his approach to religious matters. If double standards had a face, it might well resemble his.
And guess what, Justice Rohinton authored a book on religions, in which he described the Rigveda as a foreign text originating from Central Asia. In contrast, he referred to Islam as a religion embodying peace, tolerance, unity, and brotherhood. Nariman traces his lineage to Zoroastrian priests who fled to India during the Islamic conquest of Persia. That invasion resulted in the overthrow of the Persian king, the destruction of Zoroastrian temples, and widespread violence, including forced conversions. In India, under the protection of the tolerant Hindu majority, the Zoroastrian community thrived, eventually becoming one of the nation’s wealthiest groups.
As a beneficiary of nepotism, Rohinton Nariman’s commentary on equality and rights comes across as a mockery to the common citizen. His appointment saw the minimum age rule relaxed by the then Chief Justice of India, showcasing favoritism in his career progression. Despite this privileged journey, he still finds the audacity to lecture others on principles of justice and fairness.
Justice Rohinton Nariman hails from the Parsi community, originally from Persia (modern-day Iran). The Parsis migrated entirely from Iran to escape persecution, not due to any ideology like RSS or Hindutva. Their cultural heritage has largely disappeared in Iran, as there were no persistent legal battles to reclaim their sacred Fire Temples. And he has the audacity to state that “hydra-headed” suits were being filed across the country to investigate mosques for temple structures.
Nariman, despite being the son of a renowned father, has drawn criticism for his approach, much like many individuals associated with dynastic privilege. Notably, Hindu India honors his Parsi lineage with a prominent business district named after his father.
Coming to the Ramjanmabhoomi case, did you know that after having argued for the Hindu side all those years, in 2018 he recused himself from the case?
Links with Congress, lapdog
Interestingly, he became a judge shortly after resigning as Solicitor General under Sonia Gandhi’s UPA government. He rose to the position of Senior Counsel at the young age of 37, largely due to being the son of Fali Nariman, who served as Additional Solicitor General for Indira Gandhi. While Nariman has been described as secular, he has made controversial remarks about the Vedas during his tenure as a judge, despite being an ordained priest. Nariman gave a lecture at the Justice Ahmadi Foundation, where he discussed the Union Carbide case. Justice Ahmadi, who presided over the case, later became a trustee of the Bhopal Rehabilitation Trust, which was funded by Union Carbide, and Fali Nariman argued in favor of Union Carbide. Nariman has also spread misinformation, claiming that Modi changed the law to appoint the election commissioner, even though the new law, which includes the Leader of the Opposition in the process, is an improvement.
Nepotism
Rohinton Nariman is a prime example of nepotism, and for him to speak about equality and rights feels like a mockery to the common man. The minimum age requirement for senior advocates was relaxed by then CJI to accommodate Nariman’s appointment. Despite benefiting from favoritism to advance his career, he now has the audacity to preach about justice. Nariman was designated as a senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India in 1993 at the age of 37, even though the rules stated the minimum age for such an appointment was 35. This rule was amended by Chief Justice Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah to allow his appointment.
Hypocrisy
When Yogi Adityanath became the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh for the first time, the late Senior Advocate Fali Nariman expressed concerns that the Constitution was under threat, primarily because Yogi is a priest. However, Fali Nariman did not share the same concerns when his own son, Justice Rohinton Nariman, a priest himself, was appointed as a judge in the Supreme Court. Instead, he took pride in his son’s position, viewing it as a reflection of their priestly family background. Justice Nariman even claimed that his upbringing as a child priest instilled in him discipline.
Ex-Justice Nariman, over his career from 1979 to 2021, he witnessed 23 election commissioners being appointed, many under Congress PMs. He saw two of them join Congress, and one even became a minister—yet somehow, he didn’t find any issues with those elections. But during the 2024 elections, he suddenly began misleading the public, claiming that the appointments of Election Commissioners by the PM, a minister, and the leader of the opposition would destroy the integrity of elections—just because Modi is Hindu.
Exposed ignorance about tax raids
In 2023, Nariman made controversial remarks regarding the Income Tax authorities’ survey on the BBC, displaying a misunderstanding between an income tax raid and a survey.
The retired judge, known for his perceived bias and allegiance to Sonia Gandhi, was seen to be propagating a personal interpretation of the law. Critics further pointed out that no court has declared the BBC survey illegal or unconstitutional, and the broadcaster has reportedly admitted to tax evasion. Questions have also been raised as to why the retired judge does not wait for the BBC to file its revised income tax returns before making such statements.
Reg Collegium recommendations
In January 2023, he had called for the Supreme Court to impose a 30-day timeline on the Union Government to accept the Collegium’s recommendations. However, he later admitted that the current Collegium system is the worst and is advocating for a change in its composition.
Hinduphobe and Islamophile
Nariman made two significant judgments just before his retirement, one concerning the Kanwar Yatra and the other regarding Bakr-e-Eid celebrations, both involving the use of Article 21 of the Constitution, but with differing outcomes.
In July 2021, Nariman took suo motu cognizance of a report in Indian Express about the proposed Kanwar Yatra in Uttar Pradesh, at the height of the second wave of COVID-19. The bench, led by Nariman, expressed concern over the potential health risks posed by the Yatra. Nariman argued that the citizens of India were confused about the situation and criticized the Uttar Pradesh government’s plea to hold a symbolic Yatra, emphasizing that health and the right to life were paramount, with religious sentiments being secondary. As a result, the bench imposed a ban on the Kanwar Yatra, citing the fear of a third wave of COVID-19.
Just a few days later, Indian Express reported on Kerala’s decision to relax the lockdown to allow Bakr-e-Eid celebrations. However, Nariman did not take suo motu cognizance of this situation, admitting that the case only came to his attention after an application highlighted the concerns about public health in Kerala. In his observations, Nariman criticized the Kerala government’s decision, pointing out that it was made under pressure from traders who had stocked goods for the festival. He noted that the relaxed measures posed a risk to public health and violated the right to health under Article 21. Despite these concerns, Nariman did not impose a ban on the relaxations or quash the government’s notification.
Critics have pointed out the contrast in Nariman’s approach, where he imposed strict measures for the Kanwar Yatra while allowing relaxation for Bakr-e-Eid. By the time the impact of his decision regarding Bakr-e-Eid became apparent, Nariman had already retired from the Supreme Court.
Made disparaging comments on RigVeda
During a lecture on “Great Women of History” in 2021, Nariman quoted the Rig Veda, stating, “Rig Veda says do not make lasting friendship with women because she would be like hyena.” This comment has been heavily criticized, with scholars like Swami Vigyananand calling it a misinterpretation and disparaging of the Vedic texts. Swami Vigyananand emphasized that understanding the Vedas requires knowledge of Rishi Pāṇini’s grammar, Nirukta, and Pratishakhya, and invited Nariman to a public debate on the issue.
Additionally, Nariman’s lecture was criticized for being disconnected from Bharatiya (Indian) ethos, as he did not mention prominent Indian women from history such as Rishi Gargi, Maitreyi, or various queens who led their kingdoms against foreign invaders. Instead, he focused on figures from Western history, such as Cleopatra and Elizabeth I, which was seen as reflecting a Euro-centric perspective rather than an appreciation of India’s own historical figures and cultural context.
It’s truly remarkable how Hindus filing suits against mosques and dargahs – hydra-headed suits at that, supposedly creates “communal disharmony,” yet the Wakf Board’s claim to a 1500-year-old temple land would not be questioned by the likes of Rohinton Nariman who might as well hail it as a move to enhance “communal harmony.”
