Top News

Agra: The ongoing ‘Tejomahalaya’ controversy regarding the world famous Taj Mahal is once again in the news. The petition seeking permission for Jalabhishek and Dugdhabhishek in the month of Sawan, declaring Taj Mahal as an ancient Shiva temple, was to be heard in the court on Tuesday, but now it has been postponed. The court has posted this case for further hearing. 9th July The date has been fixed.

Why was today’s hearing postponed?

Actually, the health of the lawyer of the petitioner side in this case suddenly deteriorated. Due to the lawyer being ill, the court was requested to give the next date, which was accepted by the court. Let us tell you that this petition was filed by Yogi Youth Brigade state president Kunwar Ajay Tomar in the year 2024. Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and Government of India have been made parties in this case. The petitioner claims that Taj Mahal is not a mausoleum but ‘Tejomahalaya’ is a Shiva temple, hence he should be allowed to perform puja and consecration in Sawan.

What answer did ASI give in the court?

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has already made its stand clear on this controversy. During the last hearing, ASI had given an affidavit in the court saying that Taj Mahal is a protected monument. According to the law, no change can be made in its original form or the way it is used. ASI also argued that similar claims have been made in several courts before, which were rejected due to lack of solid historical evidence.

What does the law and old decisions say?

This controversy regarding Taj Mahal being a Shiva temple is quite old. Earlier, Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court have also rejected such claims due to lack of evidence. Legal experts say that the ‘Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act’ of 1958 is very strict in allowing new religious rituals in any historical building.

Now all eyes are on July 9. On that day, the court can decide whether this petition should be taken forward for hearing or it should be rejected on the basis of old decisions. If the court considers the evidence, both sides will have to produce historical documents to prove the veracity of their claims.