0,00 USD

No products in the cart.

0,00 USD

No products in the cart.

[bsa_pro_ad_space id=1]

Allahabad HC Rejects Plea on Taj Mahal

- Advertisement -

On Thursday, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court heard the petition requesting to open the 20 closed doors of the Taj Mahal. The division bench of Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, while hearing the matter at 2.15 pm today, dismissed the petition. Dr. Rajneesh Singh of Ayodhya had filed the petition. In the petition Dr Singh cited the book Taj Mahal by historian PN Oak. The petitioner claimed that the Taj Mahal is actually Tejo Mahalaya. King Parmardi Dev had built it in 1212 AD.

The petition also claimed that there is a temple of Lord Shiva within the closed doors of the Taj Mahal. The petition also referred to the recent controversy regarding the visit of Jagatguru Paramhans of Ayodhya to and his detention because of saffron robes. The petitioner has requested to make a fact-finding committee in relation to the Taj Mahal. The committee will study and issue directions to open about 20 closed doors of the Taj Mahal. So that the truth can come out.

In the hearing in the Lucknow Bench of the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner Rajnish Singh said that the citizens of the country need to know the truth about the Taj Mahal. The petitioner said- I have filed many RTIs. I have come to know that many rooms are closed. The administration says that this is due to security reasons.

In response to this, the counsel for the UP government said that there is already a registered case in this regard in Agra. The petitioner has no jurisdiction over it. At the same time, the petitioner said that I am not talking on the fact that the land is related to Lord Shiva or Allah. My main issue is those closed rooms and we all should know what is behind those rooms.

After that, the two-judge bench asked the petitioner to go do MA and then choose this as a subject. If any institution stops you then come to us. The court asked from whom are you seeking information? In response to this, the petitioner said that from the administration. On this, the court said – If they have said that the rooms are closed due to security reasons, then that is the information.

If you are not satisfied then challenge it. You do MA and then do NET, JRF and if any university prevents you from doing research on this subject then come to us. The court said that the petitioner should remain confined to his petition.

The petitioner said that allow us to go to those rooms. On this, the court taunted that tomorrow you will say that we have to go to the honorable judges’ chamber. Don’t make fun of PIL system. The petitioner said that give me some time, I want to show some decisions on this.

- Advertisement -
Latest news
- Advertisement -
Related news
- Advertisement -

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here