The Allahabad High Court has directed the Union Government and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to provide counter-affidavits in relation to a petition alleging the presence of a ‘Tejo Mahalaya’ temple within the Taj Mahal complex.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal issued this order while hearing a plea challenging lower courts’ refusal to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a survey and scientific documentation of the site. The court also issued a notice to respondent Pankaj Kumar Verma.
The dispute traces back to a civil suit instituted in Agra in 2015. In that suit, Hari Shankar Jain and other devotees claimed that the Taj Mahal was originally the Tejo Mahalaya, a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Shiva, before it was converted into Mumtaz Mahal's mausoleum during the reign the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan.
They have sought a declaration to that effect as well as permission for Hindus to perform darshan, pooja and aarti within the monument. According to the petitioners, an inspection of the Taj Mahal is necessary to document architectural and structural features which, they claim, support their case.
During proceedings in the Agra court, the petitioners applied for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to survey and photograph the premises to determine the historical nature of the structure. This request was initially rejected by the trial court, and a revision plea was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on grounds of maintainability.
Senior Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, representing the petitioners via video conference, argued that the lower courts erred in dismissing the plea, stating that “a scientific survey and photographic record are critical for reaching a fair and definitive resolution of the dispute.”According to the petitioners, an inspection of the Taj Mahal is necessary to document architectural and structural features which, they claim, support their case.
They argue that such evidence cannot effectively be proved through oral testimony alone. Since the Taj Mahal is a protected monument under the control of the ASI, they contend that they cannot independently access or photograph the portions they seek to rely upon before the trial court.
It was for this reason that the petitioners moved an application in 2017 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect, photograph and videograph the Taj Mahal and submit a report before the trial court.The trial court, however, rejected the application in July 2019, holding that there was no justification for appointing a commissioner. The Additional District Judge at Agra affirmed that decision on April 4, 2026.
Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioners have now approached the Allahabad High Court, contending that both courts failed to examine whether a local investigation was necessary to resolve the issues in dispute and instead rejected the application on grounds unrelated to its merits.The petition argues that the physical features, architectural characteristics and other visible aspects of the monument cannot be effectively proved through oral evidence alone.
Follow us
