The Allahabad High Court on Monday sought responses from the Union government and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on a plea seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and photograph the Taj Mahal in Agra.
The plea is linked to a pending civil suit in which the petitioners claim that the Taj Mahal was originally the Tejo Mahalaya, a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Shiva, before it was converted into a mausoleum during the Mughal era.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal directed the Union government and the ASI to file their counter-affidavits in the matter.
Petition Challenges Lower Court Orders
The petition has been filed by the deity Lord Sri Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheshwar Virajman Tejo Mahalaya Temple Palace through next friend Hari Shankar Jain and other devotees.
The petition challenges the decisions of both the trial court and the revisional court, which refused to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local inspection of the Taj Mahal.
According to the petitioners, the inspection is necessary to photograph and document architectural and structural features that they claim support their argument that the monument was originally a Hindu temple.
Suit Pending Since 2015
The dispute dates back to 2015, when Hari Shankar Jain and other devotees filed a civil suit in Agra claiming that the Taj Mahal was originally the Tejo Mahalaya temple dedicated to Lord Shiva before it became the mausoleum of Mumtaz Mahal during the reign of Mughal emperor Shah Jahan.
The petitioners have sought a declaration recognising the monument as a temple and have also requested permission for Hindus to perform darshan, pooja and aarti inside the premises.
Petitioners Say Inspection Is Necessary
The petition argues that the physical and architectural features of the monument cannot be effectively proved through oral evidence alone.
It states that because the Taj Mahal is a protected monument under the control of the ASI, the petitioners cannot independently inspect or photograph the areas they wish to present before the trial court.
For this reason, they had filed an application in 2017 seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect, photograph and videograph the monument and submit a report.
However, the trial court rejected the application in July 2019, holding that there was no justification for such an appointment. The Additional District Judge, Agra, upheld that decision on April 4, 2026.
Petition Cites Ayodhya Verdict
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that both lower courts failed to consider whether a local investigation was necessary to resolve the dispute.
The plea relies on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ayodhya title dispute, arguing that civil courts have the power under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint commissioners for local investigations when required to clarify disputed facts.
The matter was argued by Vishnu Shankar Jain, assisted by Saumya Srivastava.
The High Court has sought replies from the Union government and the ASI, and the matter will be taken up after their responses are filed.
