Suraj Bhan (archaeologist)

"In the cross-examination before the HC, Bhan admitted that only he and Sharma had gone to Ayodhya prior to the study. He admitted having no knowledge of Puranas and said, “We were given only six weeks time for the entire study. Pressure was being repeatedly exerted; so, we submitted our report without going through the record of the excavation work by B B Lal. This was the point the bench focussed on to refuse attaching any value to the four historians' report.""

"“.. I did not try to know what is written in the Ramayana by Tulsi Das…”...“I did not read what features a mosque may not have. I am not a specialist in epigraphy and numismatics… I am not a geologist… I am not a student of History… I am not a specialist in architecture. My specialty was field archaeology.”"

"“Nobody forbade me from observing the potteries in the pottery yard but no archaeologist was there to help me in my study.”"

"“I did not make any study of any recorded history with regard to the disputed subject.”"

"At the time of my exploration at the disputed site, Prof. Irfan Habib was Chairman of the said institution. It is true that we had received grant for the exploration of the disputed site through this very institution."

"It is true that my conclusions and views on certain issues are based on my knowledge existing prior to the submission of ASI’s report in court. I and Prof. Habib had given this statement that remains of old mosque or Eidgah had been found beneath the disputed site and not of any temple.If this propaganda that remains of temple were found at the disputed site, had not taken place, there would have been no occasion for me and Prof. Irfan Habib to give the above statement."

"“The ASI Report had a feature not amenable to criticism. It was that they (the excavators) have discovered many walls and floors and some pillar bases beneath the Babri mosque, and all these constitute evidence.”"