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)

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15175/1984-2503-202113201

Keywords:

Archaeology, Supreme Court, evidentiary value, temple, mosque

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Tarkesh J. Molia, Institute of Law, Nirma University

Associate Professor at the Institute of Law, Nirma University, India, Ph.d from Saurashtra University, Rajkot. Specialization in Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Comparative Constitution. Research areas of Interest: Constitution, Human Rights.

Vikash Kumar Upadhyay, Nirma University

Assistant Professor at the Institute of Law at Nirma University, pursuing Ph.D. from Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar. Specialization in Labour Law, Real Estate Law, Corporate Law. Research areas of interest: Labour Law, Corporate Law, Real Estate Law.

Arpit Sharma, Institute of Law, Nirma University

Assistant Professor at the Institute of Law at Nirma University, pursuing Ph.D. from Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar. Specialization in Labour Law, Real Estate Law, Corporate Law. Research areas of interest: Labour Law, Corporate Law, Real Estate Law.

References

BERNBECK, Reinhard; POLLOCK, Susan. Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity. Current Anthropology, Chicago, v. 37, n. 1, p. S138-S142, 1996.

GOPINATH, Arunima. Ayodhya Verdict: Bad Theology, Without Justice. Economic & Political Weekly, Bombay, v. 45, n. 41, Oct. 9, 2010.

GUPTA, Anupam. Dissecting the Ayodhya Judgment. Economic & Political Weekly, Bombay, v. 45, n. 45, Dec. 11, 2010.

INDIAN. Indian Evidence Act. 1872. Available at: https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1872-01.pdf. Accessed on: Feb. 18, 2021.

INDIAN. The Code of Civil Procedure. 1908. Available at: https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1908-05.pdf. Accessed on: Dec. 12, 2020.

INDIAN. Supreme Court of India. M. Siddiq (Dead) through Legal Representative vs. Mahant Suresh Das. Supreme Court Cases, n. 1, 2020.

RAMNATH, Kalyani. Of Limited Suits and Limitless Legalities: Interpreting Legal Procedure in the Ayodhya. National University of Advanced Legal Studies Law Journal Judgment, Kochi, v. 5, n.1, 2011.

Downloads

Published

2021-05-31

How to Cite

Molia, T. J., Upadhyay, V. K., & Sharma, A. (2021). 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). Passages: International Review of Political History and Legal Culture, 13(2), 180-190. https://doi.org/10.15175/1984-2503-202113201