A petition has been filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging orders passed by courts in Agra refusing to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the Taj Mahal and undertake photography and videography in a civil suit claiming that the monument is an ancient Hindu temple known as “Tejo Mahalaya”.
The writ 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. The respondents include the Union of India, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and other authorities.
The dispute stemmed from a declaratory civil suit instituted in 2015 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, seeking a decree of declaration that the Taj Mahal was an ancient Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Shiva, originally known as “Tejo Mahalaya,” along with consequential relief permitting Hindus to perform darshan and puja within the monument precincts. The plaintiffs contended that members of the Hindu community had a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution to worship at the site.
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application in 2019 under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the monument and place on record its physical, architectural and structural features through photographs and videography. According to the plaintiffs, such evidence was essential for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.
However, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, rejected the application. The trial court observed that the plaintiffs had not produced revenue records such as khasra or khatauni to establish the exact gata number of the property and further noted that the boundaries and area described by the plaintiffs did not correspond with the documents relied upon by the defendants. The plaintiffs challenged that order by filing a civil revision before the Additional District Judge, Agra. The revisional court, however, dismissed the revision as not maintainable in April this year.
Assailing both orders before the High Court, the petitioners contend that the courts below committed patent illegality, material irregularity and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by rejecting the application on considerations wholly irrelevant to the purpose of appointing an Advocate-Commissioner.
They argued that there was no dispute regarding the identity of the suit property since the Taj Mahal is a world-renowned protected monument, and therefore the absence of revenue records could not have been a valid ground for rejecting the application.
The petition reiterated several historical, archaeological and architectural claims originally made in the civil suit. According to the plaintiffs, the monument was originally constructed in 1155-56 AD by Raja Paramardi Dev as a temple dedicated to Lord Shiva under the name of Tejo Mahalaya.
It was further claimed that the structure subsequently came under the control of Raja Maan Singh and later Raja Jai Singh of Jaipur before Mughal emperor Shah Jahan allegedly took possession of the property and converted it into a mausoleum in memory of Mumtaz Mahal by incorporating certain Islamic features into the existing structure.
According to the petitioners, more than 109 archaeological, historical and architectural features established that the structure was originally a Hindu temple. Among the features relied upon are the lotus-petal design surrounding the marble dome, the kalash placed atop the dome, and the existence of a structure recorded by the ASI as a gaushala. The petition contends that a gaushala forms an integral part of a Hindu temple complex and not a Muslim mausoleum.
The petition further alleges that several portions of the monument remain locked and inaccessible to the public. It also claims that the ASI has unlawfully permitted Muslims to offer namaz on Fridays while denying Hindus the right to perform worship at the site. According to the plaintiffs, permitting any religious use other than Hindu worship is contrary to law.
The petitioners submit that the structural, archaeological and architectural features of the monument, including the allegedly locked portions, cannot be effectively proved through oral evidence alone. They contend that authoritative photographic and videographic evidence collected through a court-appointed Advocate-Commissioner is indispensable for effective adjudication of the suit.
The plea further states that since the Taj Mahal is a protected monument under the control and management of the ASI, the plaintiffs do not possess any independent right to freely photograph or videograph either the interior or exterior portions of the monument. Consequently, they argue that only an Advocate-Commissioner appointed by the civil court can inspect the premises, document the relevant physical features and submit an objective report before the trial court.
On these grounds, the petitioners have sought quashing of the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, and the Additional District Judge, Agra, along with a direction to the trial court to reconsider the application for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner on its own merits and in accordance with law.
Pending adjudication of the writ petition, the petitioners have also sought interim directions requiring the Director General of the ASI to undertake photography of the monument from both inside and outside in the presence of the petitioners and place the photographs before the High Court to facilitate effective adjudication of the proceedings. The matter is listed for hearing on Monday.
The post Taj Mahal dispute: Allahabad High Court to hear matter after Agra court refuses to appoint Advocate Commissioner appeared first on India Legal.