ASI’s neutrality under fire: Jain hits back at claims of bias in disputed survey

Jain took direct aim at allegations raised by advocate Ashhar Warsi, counsel for an intervener, that the ASI report lacked neutrality and favoured petitioner Hindu Front for Justice. “The arguments advanced to this extent are based on baseless claims,” Jain said, asserting that 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.

On the respondent Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society’s charge that carbon dating was not conducted to determine the age of the structure, Jain said the test 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.

He 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 — noting that the X-ray fluorescence revealed distinct layered patterns distinguishing old construction from new.

On 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 characterisation of a water tank at the centre 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.

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.

With all contenders having concluded their arguments, the bench reserved its verdict. TNN