Ayodhya Dispute: Muslim side sorry for doubting Archaeological Survey of India report

The Muslim side to the Ayodhya title suit case cut a sorry face on Thursday as it apologised to the Supreme Court for doubting the authenticity of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The excavation report by ASI submitted in 2003 to Allahabad High Court hearing had indicated evidence of a Hindu structure akin to a massive temple underneath the disputed site. The report contradicted the Muslim claim of the Babri Masjid being built in 1528.

On Wednesday, senior counsel Meenakshi Arora representing the Muslim parties showed the summary of the report that lacked signatures, no mention of authors, all which pointed to the inadmissibility of the report. Court found a letter signed by one of the authors Hari Manjhi presented with the report before the HC.

Opening arguments for the Muslim side on Thursday, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan told the Court that he wished to states that the argument yesterday on the report lacking signature or author was a "futile discussion." He said, "On behalf of the entire Muslim side, its our stand that the authorship of the ASI report cannot be questioned as this discussion goes to the authenticity of the document. We apologise for wasting the Court's time." The Court told the Muslim side that it was open for them to summon the author of the report as witness to be cross examined before the HC. Having failed to do so, the report had since become part of case record, rendering Muslim side's arguments infructuous.

Taking back what Arora submitted, Dhavan said, "The questioning of remanding this case back to the High Court does not arise at this stage, neither does rejection of the report nor summoning the experts as witnesses." The bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer agreed to hear Arora on the aspect of whether the report achieved or failed to achieve the purpose for which it was appointed, and if there were contradictions in report.

Arora representing the Muslim parties began by explaining that pillar bases located during excavation belonged to four time periods, hence a massive temple, could not be part of a single time period.

Arora doubted the existence of an Islamic structure underneath due to presence of glazed blue pottery, characteristic of Islamic art, as one of the period relating to the ASI study related to medieval Sultanate period. Using these points, Arora attacked the authenticity of the report terming it "weak" evidence.

But the bench reiterated, "The only person you could have elicited a response from was the author of the report whom you did not cross examine. Should we not draw an adverse inference against you?" Arora also wondered how the lotus, sculptures of a couple in embrace, could be inferred as "divine".

ARGUMENT

Senior counsel Meenakshi Arora representing the Muslim parties began by explaining that pillar bases located during excavation belonged to four time periods, hence a massive temple, could not be part of a single time period