Allahabad: The Allahabad High Court on Monday directed the Center and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to file their responses to a petition challenging an Agra court’s refusal to permit a survey of the Taj Mahal. The court’s order pertains to the procedural question of whether an inspection should be allowed and does not amount to a finding on the historical claims raised in the petition.
Petition Challenges Agra Court’s Rejection
The petition has been filed on behalf of the deity Lord Sri Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheswar Virajman through its “next friend”, advocate Hari Shankar Jain, along with several devotees. It challenges earlier orders of Agra courts rejecting a request to appoint an advocate commissioner to conduct photography, videography and an inspection of the monument.
The petitioners contend that the Taj Mahal was originally an ancient Hindu temple known as “Tejo Mahalaya” and have sought a declaration recognizing it as such. They have also requested permission for Hindus to perform darshan and prayers at the site, citing their rights under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Historical Claims and Survey Demand
According to the petition, the structure was originally built as a temple dedicated to Lord Shiva before being converted into a mausoleum during the Mughal era. The petition also refers to several architectural and archaeological features that, according to the petitioners, support their claim.
The petitioners argue that they require a court-appointed commissioner to document the monument because access to several portions of the ASI-protected site is restricted.
High Court Seeks Replies
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal directed the Center and the ASI to submit counter-affidavits in response to the plea. The petition also seeks an interim direction asking the ASI to photograph the interior and exterior of the monument in the presence of the petitioners and place the material before the High Court.
The matter will be considered further after the respondents file their replies. The High Court has not made any observations on the validity of the petitioners’ historical assertions.
Comments are closed.