Key Points:
Allahabad High Court issued a notice to the centre and Archaeological Survey of India to respond to a plea seeking an inspection of Taj Mahal to prove it was originally a site of Lord Shiva Temple.
The plea was rejected twice in Agra trial court and revisional court before petitioners challenged the dismissals in the high court.
Petitioners claim structural similarity of Taj Mahal to that of Hindu temples like lotus motifs, the finial atop the main dome, and a stucture described as 'gaushala.'
ON MONDAY, JULY 6, 2026, the Allahabad High Court asked the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the Union government to file a counter-affidavit on a petition seeking an inspection on whether Taj Mahal was originally the site of a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Shiva. There has been no official order to conduct any official survey into the historical site as the High Court is only seeking centre’s response to the plea for now.
The matter came up before Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, who was hearing a petition challenging the rejection of an application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and photograph the monument. The petition was reportedly filed on behalf of Lord Sri Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheshwar Virajman Tejo Mahalaya Temple Palace through its "next friend" Hari Shankar Jain, along with other devotees.
The plea forms part of a civil suit pending in an Agra court since 2015. The lawsuit argues that the Taj Mahal was originally a Shiva temple before it was allegedly converted by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan into the mausoleum of his wife Mumtaz Mahal. As part of the case, the petitioners also seek permission to perform Hindu religious rituals and prayers inside the Mughal structure.
The petitioners representing the Lord Shiva’s temple, officially known as Lord Sri Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheshwar Virajman Tejo Mahalaya Temple, argue before the High Court that an inspection by an Advocate Commissioner is necessary because the evidence of Shiva Temple needs inspection of architectural and structural features of the Taj Mahal, which, according to them, cannot be properly proven by oral claims alone.
They told the court that since the Taj Mahal is a protected monument under the ASI, they cannot independently enter restricted portions of the complex or photograph features they allege indicate a Hindu origin. Therefore, they have now reached out to court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect, photograph, and document those portions. After getting rejected twice in the Agra trial court and revisional court the petitions moved to high court challenging those rejections.
The petitioners list the features that, according to them, represent part of Hindu culture. Among these are lotus motifs, the finial atop the main dome, and a structure described as a “gaushala” (cow shed) in certain ASI records. The petitioners also claimed that several parts of the monument are inaccessible, requiring a court-monitored inspection.
The plea further relies on Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which a civil court may appoint a commissioner to conduct a local investigation if it considers such an exercise necessary for deciding disputed questions of fact. The petitioners even cite the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment to argue that courts have the power to order such local investigations wherever required.
An Agra trial court had rejected the same petition in 2019, holding that there was no sufficient ground for appointing an Advocate Commissioner in the case. The petitioners challenged that order before a revisional court, but the challenge was again dismissed in April 2026. The revisional court observed that the petitioners had failed to produce relevant revenue records identifying the disputed property. It also noted that the description of the property in the suit did not match the documents relied upon by the defendants.
However, the petitioners argued before the high court that both lower courts rejected their application on technical grounds without examining the central question of whether a local investigation was necessary for deciding the dispute.
The Allahabad High Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the temple claim or on whether the Taj Mahal should be surveyed. At this stage, it has only sought replies from the Centre and the ASI.
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store
