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.

Press Trust of India September 26, 2019 13:42:55 IST
Ayodhya Case in Supreme Court: On day 32 of hearing, counsel for Muslim parties apologises for questioning 2003 Archaeological Survey of India report
  • 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.

Ayodhya Case in Supreme Court On day 32 of hearing counsel for Muslim parties apologises for questioning 2003 Archaeological Survey of India 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.

"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.

Updated Date:

also read

COVID-19: Nobody can be forced to get vaccinated, says SC; asks Centre to publish reports on adverse events
India

COVID-19: Nobody can be forced to get vaccinated, says SC; asks Centre to publish reports on adverse events

In the Supreme Court, a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai said the current COVID-19 vaccine policy cannot be said to be manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable

Explained: What Supreme Court’s historic order on sedition law means for those on trial
India

Explained: What Supreme Court’s historic order on sedition law means for those on trial

While temporarily suspending the colonial-era sedition law, the Supreme Court said that those already booked under Section 124A of the IPC and are in jail can approach the courts for bail

Centre may amend sedition law instead of revoking it: Mahua Moitra
Politics

Centre may amend sedition law instead of revoking it: Mahua Moitra

Her comment came a day after Supreme Court in a landmark order put on hold the controversial sedition law till the Centre completes a promised review of the colonial relic and also asked the central and state governments not to register any fresh case invoking the act