The Allahabad High Court today came down heavily on a petitioner who sought to open the 22 locked rooms in the Taj Mahal. After the petitioner said that they have filed multiple PILs on the issue, the court asked them to not make a “mockery of the PIL system”.
Rajneesh Singh, who is the media in-charge of the BJP’s Ayodhya unit, had filed a writ petition in front of the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court last week, seeking to “find the truth” behind the 22 locked rooms in the Taj Mahal.
“I got to know about many rooms which have been locked and the authorities said that those rooms are locked because of security reasons,” the petitioner told the court.
The counsel for the Uttar Pradesh state government told the court that the petitioner has no territorial jurisdiction in this matter.
The petition reiterates the popular right wing claim by historians and leaders that the mausoleum is actually an old Shiva temple. The petition has sought the ASI to form a special committee to examine the locked rooms and release the report to the public.
“I’m not on the fact that the land belongs to land Shiva or Allah-o-akbar,” the petitioner said, adding: “My main concern is about the closed rooms and we all should know what’s there behind those rooms.”
The court, reacting to the petitioner’s argument, said: “You hold that structure is not made by Shah Jahan? Are we here to pronounce any judgement? As to whether who built it or what is the age of Taj Mahal? You need not to take us to historical facts which you believe.”
The court said that the petitioner has a right to get the information under RTI act, but he does not have a right to get particular study conducted.
The court further slammed the petitioner for insinuating that wrong history has been taught to us, and said: “That is your view. You say it is wrong. Can we say you are right or anyone else is wrong?”
“Go and research. Do M.A. Do PhD. Then choose such a topic and if any institute disallows you to research on such a topic.Then come to us,” the court advised the petitioner.
When the petitioner insisted to allow “him to go to those rooms”, the court snapped at him to ask:” Tomorrow you’ll come and ask us to go to chambers of Hon’ble judges?”
“Please don’t make mockery of the PIL system,” the court warned the petitioner.
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.
