Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking appointment of a fact-finding committee to know the true history of the Taj Mahal, stating that it is the "fundamental right of citizens to know the truth".

The plea has challenged the Allahabad High Court order dismissing the PIL seeking direction for the opening of 22 locked rooms at the Taj Mahal. 

The plea filed by Dr. Rajneesh Singh through Advocate Sameer Srivastava seeks appointment of a fact-finding committee to study and publish the real history of the Taj Mahal and to put to rest the controversy around it by clarify its history.

The plea submits that "Taj Mahal though it is stated to have been built by Shahjahan for his wife Mumtaj Mahal for over a period of 22 years from 1631 to 1653, there is no scientific evidence to prove the same."

It argues that when Singh filed an RTI application before the National Council of Educational Research and Training, seeking information that in the school syllabus it is mentioned that the Taj Mahal was built in the year 1632 and is there any evidence to show that it was built by Shah Jahan.

"In reply, the National Council of Educational Research and Training stated, primary source pertaining to the above-mentioned question is not available with the Department, which shows that the fact taught to the students in school is not based on any material available with the Department", the plea adds.

Furthermore, it submits that the right to impart and receive information is a species of the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

"Here at this juncture that the petitioner is not against any religion or sect, the petitioner being a citizen of this country has right to know his history and since ASI is the premier organization for the archaeological researches and protection of the cultural heritage of the nation, therefore, petitioner has every right to ask questions from ASI about the history of such an important monument of the Country," the plea adds.

While dismissing the PIL, a bench of Justices DK Upadhyay and Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court had held that it is not for a court of law to direct such studies; they are the topics to be studied/researched by academicians.

The court had stressed that the prayers made in the petition had nonjusticiable issues, and a court of law doesn't possess judicially manageable standards that will be required to deal with the issues raised in the plea. 

It is important to note that a suit is already pending before the local court with a similar prayer. Adv. Ranjana Agnihotri had filed that suit in 2015 seeking permission to pray inside the building as it is alleged that the monument was a Shiva temple before encroachment by the Mughal emperor.

Case Title: Dr. Rajneesh Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.