Allahabad High Court to Hear Fresh Plea Seeking Court-Supervised Survey of Taj Mahal in ‘Tejo Mahalaya’ Dispute
The Allahabad High Court has taken up a fresh legal challenge seeking a court-supervised survey of the Taj Mahal to examine claims that the 17th-century monument was originally a Hindu temple known as “Tejo Mahalaya.” Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal has issued notices to the Union Government and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), directing them to file counter-affidavits in response to the petition challenging an Agra court’s refusal to order such a survey.
The writ petition has been filed by Lord Sri Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheswar Virajman (Tejo Mahalaya Temple) through “next friend” Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, along with other petitioners. They seek the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct an inspection, photography and videography of the Taj Mahal premises, contending that such a survey is necessary to establish their claim regarding the monument’s alleged historical origins.
The petition comes after both the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the Additional District Judge in Agra declined to appoint an Advocate Commissioner during the pendency of a declaratory suit filed in 2015. That suit seeks a declaration that the Agreshwar Mahadev temple existed at the site before the construction of the Taj Mahal. Challenging those orders, the petitioners have now approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.
During the preliminary hearing, the High Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the competing historical claims. Instead, it considered it appropriate to seek the stand of the Centre and the ASI before deciding whether the lower courts were justified in refusing the request for a court-appointed survey. The matter will proceed after the respondents file their replies.
The litigation has revived the long-standing “Tejo Mahalaya” theory, which asserts that the Taj Mahal was originally a Shiva temple before being converted into a Mughal mausoleum. The monument is officially recognised as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and is widely accepted by mainstream historians and the ASI as having been commissioned by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal during the 17th century. The pending proceedings concern whether a survey should be permitted; the High Court has not made any finding on the historical correctness of the petitioners’ assertions.
The outcome of the case is expected to have significance beyond the parties involved, as it may clarify the circumstances in which courts can direct archaeological or judicially supervised inspections of protected heritage monuments while balancing historical claims with the statutory protections available under heritage conservation laws. For the present, the High Court has merely initiated the process by calling for responses from the Union Government and the ASI, with the substantive issues remaining open for adjudication.
