"You (lawyer) cannot equate the (court) Commissioner's report to any other ordinary opinion. "The report cannot be held to be a substantive evidence and the ASI report is a weak evidence and needs corroboration with the substantive evidence," she said, adding that it was not binding on the court as it was only "advisory" in nature. "This (ASI report) is just an opinion and no definitive conclusion can be drawn from it," she said.Arora said archeologists were asked to give their report as to whether Ram temple existed at the site or not. "In 1885, a Nirmohi Mahant (Raghubar Das) filed a suit at Faizabad, it got rejected. "The 1885 suit did not talk about the 'shebaiti' (rights as devotee) of the Nirmohi Akahara.

Source: Economic Times September 27, 2019 13:18 UTC