The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)’s 2003 report on the Ayodhya land dispute had made a case for a large structure pre-existing the Babri Masjid.
In its historic judgment on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi title suit, the Supreme Court referred to the ASI report to observe that the Babri Masjid, which stood on the disputed site until its demolition in 1992, was not built on vacant land and that there was evidence of a temple-like structure having existed on the land before the mosque was built.
The observations were based on large pillar bases found at the time of the excavations. In 2003, excavations were carried out at the disputed site at the directions of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court Uttar Pradesh.
Reading the “unanimous” judgment on the Ayodhya title suit , CJI Ranjan Gogoi said there is clear evidence that Hindus believe Lord Ram was born at the disputed site.
“Babri Masjid was not constructed on vacant land. There was a structure underlying the disputed structure. The underlying structure was not an Islamic structure,” the Bench said. Considering the ASI report valid, the SC said what was found in the excavation “was not an Islamic structure”.
Key findings of the excavations were stone, sculptors and architectural elements. Mani claimed to have found 50 pillar bases during the excavation.
On June 11, 2003, the ASI issued an interim report that only listed the findings of the period between May 22 and June 1, 2003.
In August 2003, the ASI submitted a 574-page report before the court that suggested a chronology through different periods. The excavation by the ASI has revealed the existence of a pre-existing underlying structure dating back to the 12th century.
The structure has large dimensions, evident from the fact that there were 85 pillar bases comprised in 17 rows each of five pillar bases; On a preponderance of probabilities, the archaeological findings on the nature of the underlying structure indicate it to be of Hindu religious origin, dating to twelfth century AD.