Ayodhya case: Supreme Court says ASI report, not an ordinary opinion; inferences drawn by cultivated minds

The Supreme Court bench came down heavily on the Muslim side for suggesting that the ASI report was merely an opinion

September 28, 2019

Slamming the Muslim side for belittling the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) report, the Supreme Court on Friday said the ASI report of 2003 on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site was not an “ordinary opinion” as the archaeologists were acting on behalf of the Allahabad High Court to give their views on the excavated materials. The High Court, through its court-commissioner, had asked ASI in 2002 to excavate the site and give its findings on whether the “disputed building” was constructed on the site of an “alleged Hindu temple” after demolishing it.

The ASI, which had found artifacts, idols, pillars, and other remains, stated in its report about the existence of a massive temple structure beneath the Babri Masjid. The Archeologist K K Muhammed who was part of the ASI’s court-monitored excavation many times reiterated that the Masjid was constructed above the massive temple structure. He blamed many Left historians for hiding this fact and playing fraud[1].

For the past two days the Muslim side was trying to belittle the valid ASI report which proved the existence of a temple below the Babri Masjid. On being told by a counsel for the Muslim parties that the ASI report was “merely an opinion” and not binding on the court, a 5-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the inferences from the report were drawn by “cultivated and studied minds” (archeological experts).

“You (lawyer) cannot equate the (court) Commissioner’s report to any other ordinary opinion. They (ASI experts) conducted it (excavation) after the Commissioner asked them,” said the bench, which also comprised Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer. The bench said the experts excavated and analyzed the materials at the direction of the Commissioner who was delegated the powers by the high court.

The apex court said it was conscious of the fact that both sides have their arguments based on inferences and there were no eyewitnesses to these events. “We are conscious of that. We have to see which side’s story is reasonably probable,” the bench said on the 33rd day of the hearing in the politically sensitive case.

References:

[1] Babri Masjid dispute was the outcome of historical blunder: ex-ASI Regional Director K K Muhammed – Jan 12, 2018, PGurus.com

Author
Recent Posts

Team PGurus

We are a team of focused individuals with expertise in at least one of the following fields viz. Journalism, Technology, Economics, Politics, Sports & Business. We are factual, accurate and unbiased.