Ayodhya Case in Supreme Court: On day 32 of hearing, counsel for Muslim parties apologises for questioning 2003 Archaeological Survey of India report
The Muslim parties on Thursday apologised for questioning the authorship of the 2003 report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and also expressed regret in the Supreme Court for wasting the Constitution Bench’s time in the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute case.
-
On Wednesday, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, also representing the Muslim parties, questioned the ASI report saying every chapter is attributed to an author but the summary has not been attributed
-
At the outset, the bench asked both Hindu and Muslim parties to specify the time frame for completing the argument saying that there will not be any extra day after 18 October
-
The court asked the Muslim parties to wrap up their arguments on the ASI report during the course of the day
New Delhi: The Muslim parties on Thursday apologised for questioning the authorship of the 2003 report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and also expressed regret in the Supreme Court for wasting the Constitution Bench’s time in the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute case.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan that they do not wish to question the authorship of the summary of the ASI report.
Supreme Court of India. Reuters
"It is not expected that every page is to be signed. The authorship of the report and the summary need not be questioned. If we had wasted my Lords’ time, then we apologise for that. There is no point going into that.
Related Articles
"The report in question has an author and we are not questioning the authorship," Dhavan, representing the Muslim parties, said.
On Wednesday, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, also representing the Muslim parties, questioned the ASI report saying every chapter is attributed to an author but the summary has not been attributed to anyone.
The bench, also comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S Abdul Nazeer said that Dhavan in his opening remark has said that he has not forfeited his right to question the report but the evidences cannot be discredited after being accepted by the court.
At the outset, the bench asked both Hindu and Muslim parties to specify the time frame for completing the argument saying that there will not be any extra day after 18 October.
"There will not be any extra day after 18 October. It will be miraculous, if we deliver the judgement in four weeks in the matter," Chief Justice Gogoi said.
The court asked the Muslim parties to wrap up their arguments on the ASI report during the course of the day. It said there are holidays in October and only one advocate of the four Hindu parties will be allowed to give rejoinder arguments.
also read
9 Years of Modi Government: From a new Parliament to Statue of Unity, the architectural wonders of Narendra Modi’s India
It looks like a New India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The country just got a new Parliament building and it boasts the world’s tallest statue, the Statue of Unity; Bogibeel Bridge, India’s longest rail-cum-road bridge, among others. And there’s more to come
Explained: Why ex-Delhi minister Satyendar Jain has been granted six weeks interim bail
The Supreme Court announced a six-week interim bail to former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain on medical grounds. The AAP leader, who has been in prison since last May, was admitted to the ICU of LNJP Hospital after he collapsed inside Tihar jail
Global Watch | Why Indian markets are most attractive destination for global investors
Indian markets, investors, traders, and authorities demonstrated remarkable maturity, transparency, and promptness in addressing the Hindenburg-Adani saga