[ad_1]
Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday junked a plea filed by a BJP leader seeking to open 22 rooms on the Taj Mahal premises to check the presence of Hindu idols, terming it ‘publicity interest litigation’.
A bench of justices M R Shah and M M Sundresh refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court’s May 12 order dismissing the plea filed by Rajnish Singh, the media in-charge of the BJP’s Ayodhya unit. Singh argued there is no scientific evidence to support the theory that Taj Mahal was built by Emperor Shahjahan. The petitioner also prayed that a fact-finding committee be set up to study and publish the monument’s ‘real history.
Singh had sought a directive from the court to the Archaeological Survey of India to open the locks of the upper and lower part of the monument and to remove the walls that were blocking the rooms. However, the high court said the issues were not judicially determinable.
It also pulled up the petitioner’s lawyer for filing the Public Interest Litigation in a “casual” manner and said it could not pass an order under Article 226 in the matter. Singh then moved the Supreme Court, which has now rejected the petition.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday junked a plea filed by a BJP leader seeking to open 22 rooms on the Taj Mahal premises to check the presence of Hindu idols, terming it ‘publicity interest litigation’.
A bench of justices M R Shah and M M Sundresh refused to interfere with the Allahabad High Court’s May 12 order dismissing the plea filed by Rajnish Singh, the media in-charge of the BJP’s Ayodhya unit. Singh argued there is no scientific evidence to support the theory that Taj Mahal was built by Emperor Shahjahan. The petitioner also prayed that a fact-finding committee be set up to study and publish the monument’s ‘real history.
Singh had sought a directive from the court to the Archaeological Survey of India to open the locks of the upper and lower part of the monument and to remove the walls that were blocking the rooms.
However, the high court said the issues were not judicially determinable.
It also pulled up the petitioner’s lawyer for filing the Public Interest Litigation in a “casual” manner and said it could not pass an order under Article 226 in the matter. Singh then moved the Supreme Court, which has now rejected the petition.
[ad_2]
Source link