Plea rejected by Allahabad High Court to open 22 'closed rooms' of Taj Mahal to research the real history, says "matter should be left to historians. Please don't take us to the historical facts which you believe"
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.”
|
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?”
 Division bench of Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi - Please don’t take us to the historical facts which you believe |
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.”
 Petition said that the Taj Mahal is an old Shiva Temple which was known as ‘Tejo Mahalaya’ |
References:
Support Us
Satyagraha was born from the heart of our land, with an undying aim to unveil the true essence of Bharat. It seeks to illuminate the hidden tales of our valiant freedom fighters and the rich chronicles that haven't yet sung their complete melody in the mainstream.
While platforms like NDTV and 'The Wire' effortlessly garner funds under the banner of safeguarding democracy, we at Satyagraha walk a different path. Our strength and resonance come from you. In this journey to weave a stronger Bharat, every little contribution amplifies our voice. Let's come together, contribute as you can, and champion the true spirit of our nation.
 |  |  |
| ICICI Bank of Satyaagrah | Razorpay Bank of Satyaagrah | PayPal Bank of Satyaagrah - For International Payments |
If all above doesn't work, then try the LINK below:
DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text. The website also frequently uses non-commercial images for representational purposes only in line with the article. We are not responsible for the authenticity of such images. If some images have a copyright issue, we request the person/entity to contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will take the necessary actions to resolve the issue.
