For observers and historians around the world, the Taj Mahal—one of India’s most captivating destinations—appears to be nearing the end of its lifespan.
The Allahabad High Court in Uttar Pradesh on Monday issued a notice to the central government and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), seeking their opinions regarding an order from a court in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
In the past, the Agra court in Uttar Pradesh did not permit the appointment of an advocate-commissioner for photographing and videographing the Taj Mahal for survey purposes.
In other words, the Agra court had previously dismissed a lawyer's 2015 plea to survey the Taj Mahal.
Recently, during a hearing on the case, the Allahabad High Court asked why a survey could not be conducted beneath the Taj Mahal to search for the existence of a temple.
After hearing the arguments of advocate Hari Shankar Jain, representing the applicant, the bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court asked why the monument could not be surveyed.
Advocate Jain claims that this world-famous monument is, in fact, an ancient Hindu temple named ''Tejo Mahalaya,'' dedicated to Lord Mahadev.
The deity Mahadev has been made a primary party in the case, akin to a common person. With Mahadev as the main party, this petition has been filed through his ''dear friend'' advocate Hari Shankar Jain and several other devotees.
Following the Supreme Court of India's verdict on the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute a few years ago, advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, son of Hindutva proponent Hari Shankar Jain, told Prothom Alo in an interview that they have prepared a long list of purported sacred Hindu sites beneath certain monuments. This list is extensive.
Vishnu Shankar stated that they would selectively initiate cases on these sites. Currently, this father-son team is engaged in that work.
Vishnu Shankar Jain informed this reporter that they are associated with the Hindutva organisation Hindu Mahasabha.
Why the Taj Mahal is being claimed as a Hindu temple:
In the Allahabad High Court's case, the plaintiffs (applicants) have demanded a declaratory decree and a prohibition, asserting that the monument is a Hindu temple. They argue that members of the Hindu community, i. e. , the plaintiffs, should be allowed to worship within the premises of the Taj Mahal.
In light of the plaintiffs' demand, the Allahabad High Court asked the government and ASI why a survey should not be conducted to resolve the issue.
The Allahabad High Court played a central role in resolving the ownership dispute of the controversial Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. On 30 September 2010, the Lucknow bench of the High Court ruled by a majority of 2: 1 that the disputed 2. 77 acres of land in Ayodhya could be divided equally among the Hindu deity Ram Lalla, the managing Nirmohi Akhara, and the Sunni Waqf Board.
In the context of the Taj Mahal, the applicants claimed that under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, Hindus have the fundamental right to ''view'' and ''worship'' inside the monument. Subsequently, in 2019, a request was made to appoint an advocate commissioner to survey the Taj Mahal.
However, at that time, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Agra dismissed that petition, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to submit any revenue documents (such as Khatiyan or drafts) to ascertain specific locations (plot numbers) within the Taj Mahal. The described property boundaries and area (77 bighas) did not match the defendant's documents.
Against these orders, an April 2026 revision petition was deemed maintenance-ineligible by the Additional District Judge of Agra. Challenging these two orders, the plaintiffs approached the High Court.
In their application, the plaintiffs presented specific historical and architectural claims mentioned in the original case, stating that the purported ancient Tejo Mahalaya temple (Taj Mahal), where the deity Agresshwar Mahadev resides, was built by King Paramardi Dev in 1155-56 AD.
It is worth mentioning that UNESCO has declared the Taj Mahal a ''Heritage Site, '' and this is mentioned on the Indian government's tourism website.
This website mentions that it was built by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal, and it features pictures (paintings, perhaps digital) of Mumtaz Mahal and Shah Jahan.
Historians state that the construction of the Taj Mahal began in 1631 AD and was completed around 1653. About a decade ago, it was estimated that the market value of this monument was over 50 billion or 5,000 crore dollars. It is one of India's chief tourist attractions.
Hindutva proponents refuse to accept history:
The Hindutva advocates representing the applicants refuse to accept this claim. According to them, over time, the monument came under the control and ownership of King Man Singh and was later succeeded by Jaipur's King Jai Singh in the 17th century as the custodian of this site, i. e. , the Taj Mahal.
Subsequently, Mughal ruler Shah Jahan allegedly forcibly acquired the ''Tejo Mahalaya'' palace from King Jai Singh and converted it into a mausoleum for his deceased queen. For this transformation, some parts of the controversial monument were altered to incorporate Islamic features.
Representatives of the Hindutva organisation further claim that there are at least 109 archaeological features and historical evidence proving that the property was a Hindu temple.
The lawsuit alleges that the ASI ''illegally'' permitted Muslims to perform ''Namaz'' at the Tejo Mahalaya or Taj Mahal last Friday. This obstructs visitor access, and several floors of the building are kept locked. The plaintiffs argue that using this property for purposes other than Hindu ''worship'' and deity veneration is illegal.
The petition emphasises that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the controversial property since it is a well-known ancient monument.
Additionally, applicants argue that the structure's physical characteristics, architectural features, and locked parts ''cannot be effectively proven through verbal evidence alone. ''
The application demands unrestricted access to the ASI-controlled monument, which makes the appointment of a court-appointed photographer and videographer essential for an effective impartial resolution.
In this context, the applicants requested the High Court to annul the Agra court's order and direct the trial court (lower court) to resolve the application for appointing an advocate-commissioner on merits.
Moreover, an interim stay application requested the High Court to direct the ASI director to take photographs inside and outside the building in the presence of the applicants and submit them to the current judicial process.
Lawyers aware of the issue believe that the controversy that began over the Taj Mahal and institutionalised on 6 July has sparked a new debate.
Similarly, three decades ago, a new controversy arose in India regarding the Babri Masjid, which in 2019 was identified by the court as Ram Mandir in India. What the fate of the Taj Mahal is will become evident in a few years.