Evidentiary value of archaeological evidence: Judicial approach of the Supreme Court of India with special reference to M. Siddiq (Dead) through legal representative vs. Mahant Suresh Das (1 SCC 1)

Tarkesh J Molia,Arpit Sharma,Vikash Kumar Upadhyay

doi:10.15175/1984-2503-202113201

Abstract

Ram Janmbhoomi (birth place of Lord Rama) is the most controversial dispute of the independent India. The dispute was existing in pre-independence era but after independence dispute has changed the direction and condition of Indian political system. There was claim that mosque was built after the demolition of Ram temple. This dispute was so intense that it brought the incident of demolition of mosque in 1992. After demolition suit was filed from both the side: Muslim and Hindu. The decision of apex court on civil suit came after 27 years. The apex court took the cognizance of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report to decide the claim of parties. This paper aims to give a brief background of Ramjanmbhoomi dispute; explore evidentiary value of expert opinion; whether archaeology is science or art; to evaluate the evidentiary value of archaeological report prepared by ASI through evacuation in the judgement.

Highlights

In 1528 a mosque was built by Mir Baqi, a Mughal commander during the regime of first Mughal emperor Babur
Of the expert witness is to provide information to the court, with respect to issues, which may help the court to interpret the information, which is not in the knowledge of the court.6. In this case the relevant fact was whether the mosque was constructed after demolition of temple and whether the underlying structure was temple
The Supreme Court concluded that the archaeological evidence could not prove that whether the mosque was constructed after demolition of temple

Summary

Introduction

In 1528 a mosque was built by Mir Baqi, a Mughal commander during the regime of first Mughal emperor Babur. The Hindu Groups believed that this Lord Rama temple was demolished to construct the mosque This dispute was in existence before the independence of India. On February 1986, the District Court of Faizabad passed the order to open the disputed site for the Hindu worshippers. This made the situation worst and more communal tension was likely to happen. On April 2002 the High Court of Allahabad started the hearing on the question who owns this dispute site This questions comes with two ancillary questions: Had Babur destroyed a Hindu temple in Ayodhya, and, if so, had he built his mosque on the same spot? The Supreme Court gave the judgment on 09 November 2019 (INDIAN, 1 SCC 1, 2020)

Objectives

Results

Conclusion