'No scientific evidence to show Shah Jahan built Taj Mahal': Plea in SC seeks formation of fact-finding panel
Notably, Singh approached the top court after the Allahabad High Court rejected his plea on 12 May on the grounds that the 'issues were not judicially determinable'
New Delhi: A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the formation of a fact-finding panel to study the “real history of Taj Mahal,” a LiveLaw report said on Friday.
The petition has sought the study to “put to rest the controversy around the monument and to clarify its history.”
According to the report, the petitioner Dr. Rajneesh Singh claimed that “there is no scientific evidence to prove that Taj Mahal was built by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan for his wife Mumtaz over a period of 22 years between 1631 and 1653,” the report added.
Notably, Singh approached the top court after the Allahabad High Court rejected his plea on 12 May on the grounds that the “issues were not judicially determinable,” a LiveLaw report said.
As per the petition, Singh received a reply from NCERT after filing an RTI query.
The NCERT replied to him that “there was no primary source available saying that the Taj Mahal was built by Shah Jahan,” LiveLaw quoted the petition as saying.
The petitioner had also sought the Allahabad HC’s directions to open the Taj Mahal’s 22 sealed rooms’ for “study and inspection.”
With inputs from agencies
The bench said 1985-batch IAS officer Goel got voluntary retirement from service in a single day, his file was cleared by the Law Ministry in a single day
Supreme Court directs Centre to produce file related to appointment of Election Commissioner Arun Goel
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice K M Joseph said it wants to know whether there was any “hanky panky” in Goel's appointment as election commissioner as he was only recently given voluntary retirement from service
The move comes after Madhya Pradesh High Court passed an interim order stopping the government from prosecuting interfaith couples who marry without giving the district magistrate a 60-day notice — mandated under Section 10 of the MP Freedom of Religion Act (MPFRA) 2021