[Ayodhya-Day33] ASI Report Does Not Answer The Query Of The Court-'Whether There Was A Ram Janmasthan Temple At The Site Or Not': Meenakshi Arora

Meenakshi Arora resumed her arguments on day 33 of the Ayodhya land dispute hearing to discredit the findings of the ASI report as a mere opinion. She reiterated her submissions that a temple was built at the disputed site in the 12th century were not correct, and that the report was based on hypothetical grounds. She added that while ASI is an expert in its field, the report is opinion. Her argument was that archaeologists have different opinions, and an inference is drawn based on subjectivity, which brought her back to her initial submission that archaeology is a subjective social science unlike physics or chemistry. Archaeology is like the opinion of a handwriting expert, where there may be some degree of precision but it needs some additional evidence to support it, Arora submitted. Upon being questioned by Justice Bobde regarding any archaeological expert objecting to the report, Arora asserted that "some have expressed objections. Some ASI archaeologists have a certain inference, while their own witnesses have differing views. Even our people, who are experts in the field, have expressed a different view". On the point of questioning the authenticity of the report, which is submitted by the commissioner who is at par with a judge after power had been delegated to him, the senior advocate responded saying "a party need not examine the commissioner to rebut his report. I can counter his opinion through independent witnesses". She concluded her submissions by stating that the ASI report did not answer the question that was asked of it by the court- whether there was a Ram Janmasthan temple at the site.Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, representing Farooq Ahmed, then began arguing on the question of Res Judicata. Referring to the suit filed in Faizabad court by Mahant Raghubar Das in 1885, it was submitted that the plea for construction of permanent temple was rejected and then the Nirmohi Akhara again filed a suit in 1961 which is what would attract Sec 11 of CPC. Naphade stated that Hindus has consistently attempted to encroach upon the land since they only had limited access, through the control of the Ram Chabutra. However their attempt at getting ownership was rejected, he stated. Moving on to the findings of the High Court, Naphade submitted that their findings were wrong. "It was erroneous for the 3 judges to reject the argument on Res Judicata". J Bobde sought to clarify the issue saying that the matter only concerned the Chabutra's ownership, not entire site. "It does not make a difference. This was also accepted by Justice Agarwal", replied Naphade.Reading the High court judgement, Naphade said the Court held that the Mahant's was not a representative suit, but in personal capacity. The senior advocate focussed his arguments on whether the Mahant can be considered to have filed the suit on behalf of the entire Hindu community, and asserted they states that by using the word 'Mahant', which is the human agent of deity and the head of the Akhara, it shows that it was not just in personal capacity. The question is whether the suit was filed for the benefit of all Hindus or not, he added. It is the bona fide of a party that needs to be tested, which is essential in allowing a party to sue on behalf of others with same interests, urged Naphade further submitting that in this situation, it was filed on behalf of all Hindus. Bench has risen after CJI asked Naphade how long he would take to conclude the arguments. He said he would complete in the allotted time of 2 hours. "It's not about 2 hrs, the hearing isn't going as per schedule", said the CJI and the bench rose.

[Ayodhya-Day33] ASI Report Does Not Answer The Query Of The Court-'Whether There Was A Ram Janmasthan Temple At The Site Or Not': Meenakshi Arora

Nilashish Chaudhary

Tags