The Legal Tussle Surrounding the Taj Mahal

Source: The Hindu

Introduction 

Taj Mahal, the seventeenth-century tomb, is once again in the news. Earlier this month, the Allahabad High Court issued notices to the Centre and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), asking for their response to a plea challenging an Agra trial court order refusing a survey of the Taj Mahal. A Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal passed the order on a petition filed by advocate Harishankar Jain contending that the Taj, a UNESCO World Heritage monument, is actually "Tejo Mahalaya." 

• Mr. Jain pleaded for a declaration that the Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple and sought permission for Hindus to offer prayers there. The petitioners also sought the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the monument. 
• Built by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan as a tomb for his favourite wife Arjumand Bano, the Taj Mahal took 22 years to be completed. It was constructed under chief architect Ustad Ahmed Lahori.

The Story So Far 

• The first controversy over the tomb's authenticity arose in the 17th century, when it was claimed in the West that the architect of the Taj was Venetian Geronimo Veroneo, a jeweller by profession. 
• This was followed by a claim by Mughal Beg in Tarikh-e-Taj Mahal that the Taj was designed by Muhammad Effendi, an architect supposedly sent by the Sultan of Turkey. Effendi, however, was not an architect, as subsequent revelations proved. 
• In the mid-19th century, it was claimed that the monument was the work of Frenchman Austin de Bordeaux, a jeweller by profession. However, Austin died in 1632, the year construction on the Taj began. 
• No historian of medieval India has contested the fact that the Taj is a tomb of Mughal emperor Shah Jahan's wife, including historians Irfan Habib and Athar Ali, and scholars Satish Chopra and Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi. 
• The first person to cast aspersions on the tomb's authenticity as a non-historian was P.N. Oak, a teacher-turned-lawyer-turned-journalist.

What was P.N. Oak's Claim? 

• Through his book Taj Mahal is a Temple Palace, Oak claimed in 1965 that the Taj was originally a Rajput palace built in the 4th century. 
• In 1989, Oak revised his opinion and claimed it was originally a Hindu temple built in the early 12th century. He penned a second book, Taj Mahal: The True Story, to buttress this contention. 
• This was the first time anybody had associated the monument with a Hindu deity. 
• Historians rejected Oak's claims as lacking credibility in the absence of any evidence. 
• Oak's claim was heard in the Supreme Court, which rejected it outright in 2000.

What Legal Challenges Followed? 

• In 2005, Amarnath Mishra, now a member of Ayodhya Sadbhavna Samiti, approached the Allahabad High Court, claiming the Taj was a temple built by the Chandela rulers in 1189. The court dismissed his contention too. 
• The opponents did not give up. In 2015, a civil suit was filed at an Agra trial court seeking a declaration that the Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple. The court, however, did not agree with the claim. 
• After the trial court refused to order a survey of the Taj premises — similar to surveys ordered at Gyanvapi and Bhojshala — the petitioners approached the Allahabad High Court. 
• The High Court then sought a response from the Union Government and the ASI. 

What was the ASI's Stand? 

• In 2017, the ASI stated unambiguously that the Taj was a 17th-century tomb. 
• The technology used in its construction and design, including pietra dura, did not exist in pre-medieval days. 
• This should have ended any vestiges of controversy. However, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by a BJP leader in the Supreme Court in 2022. It was dismissed too. 
• Two years later, some activists tried to offer Gangajal at the Taj. That attempt was also foiled. 
• Now, following the Allahabad High Court ruling, the ball is in the Centre's court, besides the ASI yet again. 

The Gist 

• The Allahabad High Court had issued notices to the Centre and the ASI, asking for their response to a plea challenging an Agra trial court order refusing a survey of the Taj Mahal. 
• In 2017, the ASI stated unambiguously that the Taj was a 17th-century tomb — the technology used in its construction and design, including pietra dura, did not exist in pre-medieval days. 

Conclusion 

The recurring legal challenges to the Taj Mahal's identity — from Geronimo Veroneo to Muhammad Effendi, Austin de Bordeaux, and finally P.N. Oak's shifting temple-palace theories — have consistently failed to withstand historical and archaeological scrutiny, with courts from the Supreme Court to the Allahabad High Court repeatedly dismissing such claims. Yet the underlying dispute continues to resurface in new legal forms, most recently through the plea challenging the Agra trial court's refusal to order a survey of the monument. With the Allahabad High Court now awaiting responses from the Centre and the ASI, the episode raises a familiar question: whether repeated litigation on settled historical facts serves any purpose beyond reviving communally sensitive claims that established scholarship and consistent judicial findings have already laid to rest.