Allahabad HC seeks Centre, ASI responses on Taj Mahal survey plea

The Allahabad High Court on Monday (July 6, 2026) sought responses from the Union government and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on a petition challenging an Agra court’s refusal to order a survey of the Taj Mahal, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, with the petitioners claiming the monument was originally a temple dedicated to Lord Shiva.

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal issued notices on the plea, filed in the name of the deity Lord Sri Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheswar Virajman through a “next friend”, advocate Harishankar Jain, along with other devotees. Mr. Jain had previously appeared in the Ram Janmabhoomi title suit as well as the Krishna Janmabhoomi and Kashi Vishwanath-Gyanvapi mosque disputes.

The petitioners have pleaded for a declaration that the Taj Mahal is a Hindu temple and permission for Hindus to offer prayers there, arguing that such worship is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution. They also claimed that the ASI has ‘unlawfully’ given permission to Muslims to offer namaz inside the premises.

To prove their case, the petitioners sought the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the monument and carry out photography and videography. They approached the High Court after the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, in April rejected the petitioners’ request to appoint an Advocate Commissioner.

The trial court held that the plaintiffs had failed to produce revenue records identifying the property and that the land description in the suit did not match the documents relied upon by the defendants.

A similar plea filed in 2015 is also pending in the Agra court. 

The claim

According to the petition in the HC, the Taj Mahal was originally built in the 12th century as “Tejo Mahalaya”, a Shiva temple, and was later taken over and altered during the Mughal period. In support of this claim, the petition referred to what it described as architectural and archaeological features, including the dome’s finial, lotus motifs and a structure recorded as a “gaushala” in ASI records.

The petition also claimed that several parts of the monument remain inaccessible. It alleges that access to certain portions of the monument is restricted, making a court-monitored inspection necessary as the petitioners could not independently examine or photograph the protected monument.

In the High Court, the petitioners argued that the trial court had rejected their application on grounds unrelated to the purpose of appointing a commissioner. They submitted that there is no dispute over the identity of the monument and that its physical features, architectural elements and locked portions cannot be effectively established through oral evidence alone.