The Allahabad High Court on Monday sought responses from the Union government and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on a plea seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect, photograph and videograph the Taj Mahal in connection with a pending civil suit claiming that the monument was originally the Tejo Mahalaya, a Hindu temple dedicated to Lord Shiva.

Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal directed the Centre and the ASI to file their counter-affidavits in the matter.

The plea has been filed by the deity Lord Sri Agreshwar Mahadev Nagnatheshwar Virajman Tejo Mahalaya Temple Palace through next friend Hari Shankar Jain and others. It challenges the orders of a trial court and a revisional court refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for a local inspection of the Taj Mahal.

The dispute arises from a civil suit instituted in Agra in 2015, in which Hari Shankar Jain and other devotees claim that the Taj Mahal originally existed as Tejo Mahalaya, a temple dedicated to Lord Shiva, before being converted into the mausoleum of Mumtaz Mahal during the reign of Mughal emperor Shah Jahan.

In the suit, the plaintiffs have sought a declaration recognising the Taj Mahal as the Tejo Mahalaya temple and permission for Hindus to perform darshan, pooja and aarti within the monument.

According to the petitioners, an on-site inspection is essential to document architectural and structural features which they contend support their claim. They argue that such evidence cannot be effectively established through oral testimony alone. Since the Taj Mahal is a protected monument under the ASI's control, they submit that they cannot independently inspect or photograph the relevant portions of the monument for use in the trial.

To facilitate this, the plaintiffs had moved an application in 2017 seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect, photograph and videograph the monument and submit a report before the trial court.

The trial court rejected the application in July 2019, holding that there was no justification for appointing a commissioner. That decision was upheld by an Additional District Judge in Agra on April 4, 2026.

Challenging both orders before the High Court, the petitioners argue that the courts failed to consider whether a local investigation was necessary to resolve the issues in dispute and instead dismissed the application on grounds unrelated to its merits.

The plea further contends that the monument's physical features, architectural characteristics and other visible aspects cannot be adequately proved through oral evidence alone. It places reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in the Ayodhya title dispute, which recognised the power of civil courts under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint commissioners for local investigations where necessary to clarify matters in controversy.

The petitioners were represented by Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, assisted by Advocate Saumya Srivastava.