File photo

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday made plain its disagreement with Muslim parties’ dismissal of the Archaeological Survey of India’s excavation report indicating a “massive Hindu structure” resembling north Indian temples beneath the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya as a piece of speculation completely devoid of evidential value.

Countering the Hindu parties’ reliance on the ASI report to bolster their claim for construction of a temple on the 2.77 acre disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land, the counsel for Muslim parties, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora said, “Archaeology is a science based on speculation. Opinion of archaeologists on given excavated data could be at variance with other archaeologists as was recorded in the Allahabad High Court ’s judgment.”

Arguing before a bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, she said, “Archaeologists’ opinion is akin to opinion of a handwriting expert and cannot be regarded as an expert opinion under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act.” When Justice Bobde asked where she got the analogy of archaeologist and handwriting expert, she said it was her inference.

However, Justice Nazeer said the ASI report could be similar to a report by a court ordered inquiry commission. “The HC ordered an inquiry (into whether a temple existed beneath the disputed structure). The ASI carried out an inquiry and gave a report. So, it is more of an inquiry report. You (Muslim parties) cannot say it is a mere opinion by experts. It is much more weightier than an expert opinion. You submitted your objections to the report which were considered by the HC before rendering a finding,” he said.

The Allahabad HC, while appreciating the ASI report, had dealt with the Muslim parties’ objections to the report. It had said, “It normally happens when an expert body tenders an opinion, the party who finds such opinion adverse to its interest feels otherwise and tries to rid such opinion by taking recourse to all such measures as permissible but in the present case, we hoped a better response, particularly when the expert body involved is a pioneer and premier archaeological body of this country having international repute.

“We are satisfied that the ASI report not only deserves to be accepted but it really helps this court in forming its opinion on an important issue in this regard. All the objections against the ASI, therefore, are rejected.”

After Arora concluded her arguments, senior advocate Shekhar Naphade appeared for Muslim parties and said the suits filed by Hindu parties — Gopal Singh Visharad in 1950, Nirmohi Akhara in 1959 and one on behalf of the deity in 1989 — were not maintainable as the ownership claim over any part of the Babri Masjid was rejected concurrently by the sub-judge, district judge and the appellate authority in 1885-86.

Naphade referred to the 1885 suit filed by Mahant Raghubar Das, claiming to be the priest at Ram Chabutra and who sought to build a temple at the Chabutra in the outer courtyard of the mosque on the ground of providing shelter to devotees from the sun, rain and winter chill.

He said since the courts had concurrently rejected the claim of Mahant, who filed the suit as a representative of the Hindu community, for possession and ownership of the Chabutra, the 1885-86 judicial orders would serve as ‘res judicata’ (matter already judged) for Hindu parties to prevent them from filing fresh suits expanding their ownership rights over the entire mosque. Justice Chandrachud asked, “Now, there is a suit on behalf of the deity. If the 1885 suit was filed in the capacity as ‘sevait’ of the deity, then possibly the argument of ‘res judicata’ will apply, not otherwise.”

