The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court on Tuesday reserved its verdict in the Bhojshala-Kamal Maula Mosque case after the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) concluded its arguments defending the survey it conducted at the site.
ASI Defends Survey Impartiality
The ASI told the bench that it had followed court directives and applied scientific methods without any religious bias. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sunil Kumar Jain represented the ASI before the bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on the 21st day of regular hearings into the dispute, which ended with the court reserving its verdict on worship rights at the site.
Jain directly countered allegations raised by advocate Ashhar Warsi, counsel for an intervener, that the ASI report lacked neutrality and favored the petitioner Hindu Front for Justice. “The arguments advanced to this extent are based on baseless claims,” Jain asserted, stating that the ASI had placed before the court only what the court-supervised survey yielded. He pointed to the composition of the expert committee, which included three Muslim members along with representatives of all contesting parties, as evidence of the survey’s impartial character.
Scientific Methods Employed
On the respondent Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society’s charge that carbon dating was not conducted to determine the age of the structure, Jain explained that carbon dating applies only to organic matter and cannot be used on stone. “Other procedures suggested could only be used to establish the age of the stone, not the structure. Thus, the age was determined on the basis of stylistic grounds and palaeography,” he said.
Jain listed the scientific methods employed: ground penetrating radar surveys, handheld X-ray fluorescence analysis, mortar composition studies, and examination of basalt stones and bricks found at the site. He noted that the X-ray fluorescence revealed distinct layered patterns distinguishing old construction from new.
Addressing Specific Allegations
Regarding the society’s allegation that a plastic bottle unearthed during excavation was concealed, Jain said the item was both photographed and recorded in the survey report, having surfaced during debris clearance in the upper layer.
Addressing the society’s characterization of a water tank at the center of the complex as a “wuzu pond” (a term used by senior advocate Salman Khurshid appearing for the society), Jain presented photographs to the court, contending that the tank was constructed above ground level, a feature absent in the wuzu pond photographs submitted by the society itself. Scientific examination, he said, established that the construction along the outer perimeter of the square tank was comparatively recent.
Jain also disputed the claim that a statue of Buddha was recovered from the site, stating it belonged to Jain iconography.
RTI Allegations Addressed
On the society’s RTI-based allegation that ASI could not account for the origin of excavated artefacts catalogued as figures A1 to A18, the ASG said the items were recovered during excavations, preserved at various locations, and documented in the last survey, even though no earlier ASI records were available for them.
Verdict Reserved
With all contenders having concluded their arguments, the bench reserved its verdict. The court had clubbed the following petitions: writ petitions by Hindu Front For Justice, Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society, Antar Singh and others, Kuldeep Tiwari and Salekh Chand Jain; and a writ appeal by Qazi Zakiullah. A number of IAs were also heard during the 21 days of trial.
