CIC Directed Government to Clarify That Wheather Taj Mahal Is A Mausoleum Or Temple

Ads11

Ads2

 The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Union culture ministry to clarify its stand on whether the Taj Mahal 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 court cases, reached the CIC through a Right To Information (RTI) plea and is now at the culture ministry's door. 

 Mr 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 ASI told him no such record was available with it. Among other records, Mr Ayyangar also demanded "construction details" of the 17th century monument, including its rooms, hidden rooms and the rooms closed to him citing security reasons. 

 Mr 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 Taj Mahal and rewriting the history under an RTI application," he said.

 The Information Commissioner added that ASI had to inform the appellant whether any excavations were done in the protected site of the Taj Mahal 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.

 On February 21, 2005, the bench of Allahabad High Court 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.

Ads3