By The Colourboard Desk
On Monday, Supreme Court imposed a fine of Rs one lakh on the two petitions filed for seeking preservation of the artefacts recovered from excavation from Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya.
A bench of five Justices including B R Gavai, Krishna Murari and Arun Mishra said that the court has already given its verdict in the Ayodhya case, dismissing the PILs calling it to be an attempt to overreach the judgment.
The bench sought to ask the petitioners under Article 32 of the Constitution; said “You should stop filing such frivolous petitions. What do you mean by this petition? Are you saying that there is no rule of law and the five-judge bench judgement of this court will not be followed by anyone?”, putting a fine of Rs 1 lakh each which should be paid within one month from Monday.
The counsel appearing for the petitioners said the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust has also accepted that there are many artefacts in the area that need protection.
The two petitioners fined by the Supreme court in the case were filed by Satish Chindhuji Shambharkar and Dr Ambedkar Foundation.
They have appealed to preserve the ancient sculpturess which will be recovered after digging the foundation for the new Ram temple at Ayodhya and asked it to be done under the supervision of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
The petitioners brought attention to the fact that the recovered sculptures from site while land leveling of the Ram Janmabhoomi were projected as remains of Hindu culture without any analysis being conducted on them through ASI.
The petition includes the arguments, about the claims that the remains bear a close link with ancient Buddhist culture and literature.
"It is also learnt that said ancient artifacts and monuments are under grave threats of being damaged and destroyed at the site. Therefore the Petitioners being aggrieved by the said apprehension of loss of recovered ancient art effect are constrained to approach before this Hon'ble Court", the petition said.
The petitioners had made a representation on this issue to the DG, ASI along with other authorities responsible for the protection of such artefacts, but no response is been recieved.