LUCKNOW The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad excessive courtroom on Thursday rejected a plea to open 22 closed rooms within the Taj Mahal to establish the presence of Hindu idols, calling it a “mockery” of the general public curiosity litigation (PIL) system and asking the petitioner to analysis the subject first.
A division bench of justices DK Upadhyay and Subhash Vidyarthi stated the petition was not maintainable and that it lay exterior the powers of judicial evaluate.
“Tomorrow you’ll come and ask us to go to chambers of honourable judges? Please, don’t make a mockery of the PIL system. I welcome you to debate the difficulty with us within the drawing room and never in a courtroom of regulation,” the courtroom stated.
The plea, filed by Rajneesh Singh, a Bharatiya Janata Occasion (BJP) youth media in-charge, sought instructions to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to probe the 22 closed rooms within the Taj Mahal to establish the presence of idols of Hindu deities. He stated that he filed proper to data purposes searching for particulars of those info however was unsuccessful .
However the courtroom held that it couldn’t adjudicate on such points, and stated it was exterior the scope and authority of the courtroom to order analysis or examine on a difficulty. “Proper to get a analysis or examine not made out. It’s an space of researchers or academicians and never of courtroom. Verdict on historic points can’t be given by courtroom below writ jurisdiction. Petition being misconceived is dismissed,” stated justice DK Upadhyay.
“Go and analysis. Do M.A. Do PhD. Then select such a subject and if any institute disallows you to analysis on such a subject, then come to us. Please enrol your self in MA, then go for NET, JRF and if any college denies you analysis on such a subject, then come to us,” the courtroom added.
The petitioner’s lawyer requested the courtroom to allow him to withdraw the petition and file afresh. Nonetheless, the courtroom didn’t settle for his request.
“Are these points debatable in a courtroom of regulation? Are we judges educated and geared up with such issues?” the courtroom requested.
The courtroom pulled up Singh for submitting the PIL in a “informal” method and stated it can’t cross an order below Article 226 of the Structure within the matter. The article empowers a excessive courtroom to concern to any individual or authority below its jurisdiction orders or writs to implement the elemental rights.
The bench stated that the petitioner couldn’t level out as to which of his authorized or constitutional rights had been being infringed.
The controversy over the Taj Mahal, thought-about one of many fashionable wonders of the world, was first stirred by Purshottam Nagesh Oak’s 1989 ebook ‘Taj Mahal: The True Story’. Within the ebook, Oak claims Taj Mahal initially was a Shiva temple and a Rajput palace named Tejo Mahalaya, which Mughal emperor Shah Jahan seized and adopted as a tomb.
The idea has been repeatedly debunked by a number of historians, and even by the Union authorities in a response to Parliament in 2015. In 2000, the Supreme Court docket rejected a petition by Oak to declare that the Taj Mahal was constructed by a Hindu king.
Within the plea filed earlier than the Lucknow bench on Might 4, the petitioner sought directives to the state authorities to represent a committee to look at the 20 rooms contained in the seventeenth century monument and search for any proof associated to the presence of Hindu idols or scriptures there.
“On a more in-depth examination of the prayers made on this petition, we’re of the opinion that the petitioner has known as upon us to adjudicate and provides a verdict on a very non-justiciable concern,” the courtroom stated in its order..
