You are here: Home » PTI Stories » National » News
Business Standard

Clarify whether Taj Mahal is mausoleum or temple: CIC to govt

Press Trust of India  |  New Delhi 

The Central Information Commission has directed the Union culture ministry to clarify its stand on whether the is a mausoleum built by Shahjahan or a Shiva temple gifted to the Mughal emperor by a Rajput king.

The question, forwarded as an alternative narrative of history by some claiming to be historians and the subject of various cases, reached the CIC through an RTI plea and is now at the culture ministry's door.


In a recent order, Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said the ministry should put to rest the controversy and clarify doubts about the history of the white marbled mausoleum, considered one of the wonders of the world.

Acharyulu recommended that the ministry give information on its stand on the cases related to the provenance of the Taj Mahal, and on the frequent claims based on historian P N Oak and advocate Yogesh Saxena's writings.

He noted that some cases in courts, including the Supreme Court, were dismissed while some were pending.

Acharyulu said the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), being a party in some cases, must be holding the counters (affidavits) filed on its behalf and by the culture ministry.

"The Commission directs the Archaeological Survey of India to share those copies with the appellant at additional fee constituting the cost of copying, before August 30, 2017," he said.

The CIC was pulled into the debate after an applicant, B K S R Ayyangar, approached the ASI through an RTI application asking whether the monument in Agra was the or "Tejo Mahalaya".

"Many people stating that is not and it is Tejo Mahalaya: that this was not constructed by Shahjahan, but was gifted by Raja Maan Singh; hence give the facts as per ASI reports-details with evidences," he asked.

The ASI told him no such record was available with it.

Among other records, Ayyangar also demanded "construction details" of the 17th century monument, including its rooms, hidden rooms and the rooms closed to him citing security reasons.

Acharyulu noted what he expected from his RTI application was research and investigation into the history of the Taj Mahal, which is beyond the purview of the RTI Act and ASI.

"It is unreasonable to ask for opening of closed rooms, bringing out hidden things, and for excavations underneath the protected monument of and rewriting the history under an RTI application," he said.

"Before was declared as such protected monument, people should have filed their objections. Those who wanted to be declared as Tejo Mahalaya should have filed objections," he stated in his order.

The information commissioner added that ASI had to inform the appellant whether any excavations were done in the protected site of the and, if so, what was discovered.

"Decision regarding excavation has to be taken by the concerned competent authority and Commission cannot give directions to excavate or open the hidden or closed rooms in Taj Mahal," he said.

Oak had written a book "Taj Mahal: The True Story", arguing that was originally a Shiva temple built by a Rajput King which was adopted by Shahjahan, he noted.

"Oak claiming himself to be a historian not only wrote a book but also approached Supreme in 2000 to declare as Shiva Temple. However, Supreme reprimanded him for having 'a bee in his bonnet' about the Taj Mahal," the information commissioner said.

Acharyulu cited a petition, seeking removal of ASI notices that the was a Mughal structure, filed before the Allahabad High

On February 21, 2005, the bench of Allahabad High consisting of Justices B S Chauhan and Dilip Gupta agreed that petition raised disputed question of facts, which could not be adjudicated upon in a writ jurisdiction, and dismissed it.

(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU