NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to give credence to a report cited by the Sunni Waqf Board by four historians, who in 1991 had opined that the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya was neither believed to be Lord Ram’s birthplace before 1850 nor was there any proof of a temple being destroyed to construct the

in 1528.

A bench of Chief Justice

and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer peppered senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan with questions on the evidential value of the historians’ report and said, “At the highest, this report can be taken as an opinion.”

The bench added, “The report appears to be a counter blast to VHP campaigns and claims in 1991. Neither the views of VHP nor that of these four historians can be treated as evidence. We have to decide this case on the basis of evidence on record. The Allahabad HC had refused to rely on this report as evidence.”

The report, in the shape of a letter, was written on May 13, 1991, bearing the names of R S Sharma, retired professor of Delhi University and first chairman of Indian Council of Historical Research; M Athar Ali, retired professor of history of

and former president of Indian History Congress; D N Jha, former professor of history of DU; and Suraj Bhan, professor of archaeology in Kurukshetra University. Jha did not sign the report and only Bhan was examined as an expert witness for Sunni Waqf Board before the HC.

Referring to the study titled ‘Babri Mosque or Ram’s Birthplace? Historians Report to the Indian Nation’, the bench asked whether it was commissioned by the government or it was given voluntarily by the historians. In the cross-examination before the HC, Bhan admitted that only he and Sharma had gone to Ayodhya prior to the study. He admitted having no knowledge of Puranas and said, “We were given only six weeks time for the entire study. Pressure was being repeatedly exerted; so, we submitted our report without going through the record of the excavation work by B B Lal.”

This was the point the bench focussed on to refuse attaching any value to the four historians’ report.