, 36 tweets, 10 min read Read on Twitter
Day 7


Bench assembled.

CSV reading report of the commissioner appointed to inspect the site, who inspected the site on 16.04.50 and again on 30.04.50. CSV reads out portion describing presence of kasauti pillar containing image of shankar bhagwan.
DYC: it just says that an image of shanker bhagwan is there, no indication which pillar or if it was carved or a picture

CSV: yes my lords it doesn't say.

CSV: this gives a very clear picture feom the inspection in April 1950. This was being worshipped as a place of divine significance. and in a place with such symbols my lord, to say muslims can pray, will not be fair.

CSV reading excerpt in judgment about the perusal of photographs: My lords the relevant photographs are available in the judgment as appendix but i have the complete album. (hands over album).

J. Bobde: These pictures must be recent.

CSV: This was taken in 1990.

J. Bhushan: In commissioners report only on outside there was one stone, all this was not there.

CSV: Please see my lords there is no dispute with regard to the pillars and the arches.

CSV: Please see my lords the figurines and the decoration on kasauti pillars. Next to the pillar my lords will see there is a stone with RamJanmabhumi written.

CSV: These photos will discountenance that namaz was being performed. This indicates that this was a temple and could have been altered or modified. And no mosque would ordinarily contain pillars of this kind and the idols, the inscriptions.

J. Bobde: Have you put this to any witnesses? we would like to see how they responded, both hindu and muslim witnesses.

CSV: Yes my lords, the judges have also discussed this.
Bobde: there is a distinction betweeen whether it was built as a mosque or used as a mosque.
CSV: In muslim faith, if there are any images it cannot be a mosque.

J. Bobde: Where do you get this.

CSV: I'll show. Even a street can be used to offer prayers, but it doesn't mean that the street will become dedicated as a mosque.
CSV: Without prejudice to other submissions, i submit that this was never used as a mosque. This could have been used as a mosque by people to build their case but this was not a mosque in accordance with the shariah law....
...The fact that for some period prayers are offered for sometime it cannot be attributed to a valid possession.
CSV: The images on the pillars are completely contrary to islamic faith and belief. They do not of any images in their places of worship.

J. Bobde: what is the date of photographs.

CSV: 1990

J. Bobde: The date when it was taken?
J. Bhushan: There was a commissioner appointed in 1950 who had taken photographs and described the site, that would be more relevant than photos taken in 1990
CSV: There is no dispute that these pillars were there. There is no dispute. After the demolition the court directed an archaeological survey.
CSV reading the orders of the High Court with regard to conducting a survey by ASI of the disputed site.

CSV: (reading from ASI report) Based on all this tge conclusion is tgat there was a large mandap with a line of pillars.

J.Bobde: Carbon dating was not done?

CSV: It was done in this, it was done with respect to all excavated material.

J. Bobde: Carbon dating was not done?

CSV: It was done in this, it was done with respect to all excavated material.

J. Bobde: What is stratigraphy?

CSV: Based on carbon dating of articles found in different layers, different sequences are created.

Dhawan: Whether the idols were carbon dated. Carbon dating is only of organic material and therefore the idols were not carbon dated.

J.Bobde: There must have been some carbon dating?

Dhawan: Yes of shards and bones.

CSV: Idols I had submitted were not carbon dated but the articles found upon excavation.
J. Bobde: Anything related to Lord Ram was found?

CSV: These structures point to there being a religious structure.

J. Bobde: This report would apply to many areas. How is it relevant to RJB-BM.

CSV: The point being made is that this appears to be a large temple or mandap like area. The inference bh archaeologists is that starting from 2nd century there have been large structures of public nature.

J. Bobde: How do you relate it to the present.

CJI: See All this is very fascinating Mr Vaidyanathan, but plz point out which part of report are you relying upon?
Bench rises for the lunch. Hearing to resume at 2:15 pm

Post lunch session.

Bench assembled.

CSV: Keeping in mind our case & the case of plaintiffs in suit 4 what is being shown by us in referring to Archaeological records is that the structure was not built on vacant land but was upon a huge structure with a huge number of pillars
J. Bobde: What was the dimension.

CSV: 50m by 30 m. Though there is nothing to show that it was a temple of Lord Ram but the size of the structure and the faith would indicate and the preponderance of probabilities that it was temple of Ram.

CSV: A suggestion was out to the witness that the structure could be a Budhist structure but the ASI official has categorically rejected such suggestion.

CSV: If the structure that was above was built in 16th or 17th century, what is beneath that is 15-17 centuries before that. Starting in 2nd Century BCE.

CSV: (Showing pictures from excavation) there is plaster on walls, there has been a structure.
Bobde: What do we make of it? so different civilisations lived there?

CSV: why would different civilizations build on the same land.

DYC: See Mr. vaidyanathan, it has been for millenniums that civilisations have come up on the banks of river. There has been continuous civilizations coming inhabiting, disappearing and reappearing.

CSV: My lords but uts not any structure, its a big structure with a lot of pillars.

CSV pointed out to the report of the ASI and the findings reached at by the group of excavators that were tasked to find out if there was any temple below the disputed structure.

Citing the conclusions, CSV submits that the excavations has indicated that the remains found there date back as far as 2nd century BCE and it had been a large structure with public access.

CSV: The material that has been found has been thoroughly analysed by experts and has been cross examined. My lords may please have the observations made by High Court, Justice Khan first.

CSV reads a first para of Justice Khan's epilogue before citing the observations on ASI report.

CJI: How do you connect the Pranala and the Shiva Lingam.

CSV: My lords even in Ram's temple there are subsidiary shrines, and the pranala was for the abhishekham water to be drained out.

J.Bhushan: This is all guesswork.

CJI: What is next after Archaeological evidence?

CSV: Oral Evidence, I'll conclude in 3-4 hours.

CJI: On Monday, then.

Bench rises for the day.

Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to The Leaflet
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!