On Thursday 12th May 2022, the Allahabad High Court rejected the plea seeking the formation of a fact-finding committee to research the real history of the Taj Mahal. The petitioner sought directions from the court to open the 22 closed rooms of the Taj Mahal and register the observations to put the controversy around the Taj Mahal to rest.
The division bench of Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi maintained that the prayers of the petitioner are non-justiciable and that this matter should be left to the historians. The court asked the petitioner, “You hold that the structure (Taj Mahal) was not made by Shah Jahan? Are we here to pronounce any verdict? Please don’t take us to the historical facts which you believe.”
BREAKING: Allahabad High Court dismisses the PIL seeking opening of the locked rooms of Taj Mahal to reveal its true history. Court says that it is not equipped to deal with such prayers, it is for the academicians to study and find out. #Tajmahal https://t.co/KDbBGRKaRb
— LawBeat (@LawBeatInd) May 12, 2022
Dr. Rajneesh Singh, the media cell chief of the Ayodhya district unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party had filed the petition through his counsel advocate Rudra Vikram Singh. In this petition, he had said that the Taj Mahal is an old Shiva Temple which was known as ‘Tejo Mahalaya’.
The court said, “Such debates are meant for drawing room, not for a court of law”. Responding to this, the petitioner submitted, “I make it clear that my main concern is about the closed rooms and we all should know what’s there behind those rooms. Please allow me to go to those rooms and do the research.”
The bench questioned the petitioner, “Tomorrow you’ll come and ask us to go to the chambers of Hon’ble judges of this court?” The bench further said that the petitioner’s request was denied by the authorities due to security reasons and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he should challenge the orders. The petitioner had quoted that he has the right to get information about the Taj Mahal and its locked parts, so there should be a fact-finding committee to study these things. The bench asked, “Where is this right? To get a study conducted?”
UP govt opposed the petition in court
The government of Uttar Pradesh opposed this petition in court. It said that it has a preliminary objection over the territorial jurisdiction of this matter. The government of Uttar Pradesh informed the court that there is already a matter pending before the Agra court in this matter. The bench told the petitioner’s counsel that the court is not convinced by their prayers. The court also asked the petitioner’s counsel if the Ancient Monuments Act 1951 has made any clear declaration that the Taj Mahal was built by Mughals which is challenged by the petitioner in his plea.
The court concluded by saying, “We are of the opinion that the petitioner has called upon us to give a verdict on completely a non-justiciable issue. The issues lie outside the court and should be done by various methodologies and should be left with the historians. It is not for the Court to direct what subject needs to be researched or studied. We are not able to entertain such a petition.”
