Advocate Alleges Film ‘The Taj Story’ Plagiarised His Research on Taj Mahal’s 22 Sealed Rooms

A Supreme Court advocate has served a legal notice to actor Paresh Rawal, director Tushar Amrish Goel, and producer C.A. Suresh Jha, accusing them of unauthorized use of his original literary and research work in their upcoming film The Taj Story.

The notice, dated November 4, 2025, has been issued by Advocate Ashirvad Kumar Yadav on behalf of his client, Advocate Rudra Vikram Singh, who claims that the film borrows heavily from his 2023 publication “22 Rooms of Taj Mahal” without due acknowledgment.

The film, directed by Goel and produced under the banner of Swarnim Global Services Pvt. Ltd., is alleged to have reproduced the “factual findings, analysis, and historical arguments based on verifiable research material collected and compiled by Singh in his book, which explores the historical and architectural mysteries surrounding the 22 sealed rooms within the Taj Mahal.

According to the legal notice, Singh’s book is the culmination of several years of independent research and was published in February 2023. The advocate contends that the work presents verifiable historical findings and interpretations that are original to him and thus protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. The book, he says, gained attention for its investigative approach to the monument’s lesser-known aspects.

Before publishing the book, Singh had also filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in 2022, seeking the disclosure and opening of the sealed rooms of the Taj Mahal. The notice claims that the PIL and its arguments, based on Singh’s research, attracted significant media attention both in India and abroad, making him one of the first to popularize the subject in the public domain.

The notice alleges that the film’s narrative, including references to the 22 rooms and the historical interpretations thereof, mirrors Singh’s original findings and creative expression. Despite this, his name has not been mentioned anywhere in the film’s official credits, posters, or promotional materials.

"Such complete omission, despite the unmistakable similarities between the two works, constitutes a clear infringement of my client’s rights as an author under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as well as unauthorized adaptation and reproduction under Sections 14 and 51 of the said Act,” the notice states, referring to moral rights that protect an author’s claim to recognition and integrity over their work.

While the notice acknowledges that historical facts themselves may be in the public domain, it emphasizes that the “selection, interpretation, sequence, and expression” of those facts form an original intellectual expression that cannot be used without permission. Singh has alleged that the filmmakers’ actions amount to unjust enrichment and violation of his moral and economic rights, asserting that the film misleadingly gives the impression of independent research.

Through the notice, Singh has demanded that the filmmakers publicly acknowledge his contribution, credit him in the film and all promotional content, and issue a statement on their official social media channels.

The recipients have been given 15 days to comply, failing which Singh has warned to initiate legal proceedings for copyright infringement and seek an injunction against the film’s release.