Supreme Court asks U.P. Wakf Board to produce Shah Jahan’s Signature to back Taj Mahal’s Ownership Claim

Must Read

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Follow us

Located on the south bank of river Yamuna, Taj Mahal was commissioned in 1648. The site was designated UNESCO World Heritage site in 1983. The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Sunni Waqf Board to present papers signed by Mughal ruler Shah Jahan in a week’s time after they claimed that Taj Mahal is owned by the king in the ownership battle case against the Archeological Survey of India (ASI).

Judges

Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud

The bench reminded the board that the 17th-century monument and other heritage structures built by the Mughals had passed on to the British.  Later, it came to be vested with the government of India after Independence and was being managed by the ASI.

Factual Matter Of The Case

The board is engaged in a legal battle with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) over the ownership of the Taj Mahal.

Today, the Apex Court has made an observation while hearing a petition filed by the ASI against the board’s 2005 order to register the white marble monument as the property of the Sunni Wakf Board.

The ASI in 2010 had petitioned the court against the Wakf board’s July 2005 decision ordering that the Taj be registered as the latter’s property. There is a stay on the order.

Shah Jahan had died in 1666, almost 18 years after he had built the Taj Mahal in the memory of his late wife Mumtaz Mahal.

Claims By The Parties Counsel

Counsel V V Giri has been arguing on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Wakf Board and he has clearly stated that Shah Jahan had executed a wakf nama (inalienable charitable under the Islamic law) in favour of the board. He also said that Shah Jahan had himself declared the monument a waqf – an endowment of land by a Muslim for religious, educational or charitable purposes – and had executed a waqfnama in favour of the board.

To this, the CJI directed the board to show the original deed to the court with Shah Jahan’s signature. The court also wondered how Shah Jahan could have signed the wakf nama when he was lodged in jail. Shah Jahan was lodged in the jail at the Agra fort by his son Aurangzeb.

While, on the other hand, ASI advocate ADN Rao argued that there was no Wakaf nama. The lawyer said that “Under the 1858 proclamation, the properties taken over from the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, by the British vested with the Queen. By the 1948 act, the buildings were taken over by the Indian government.”

Order

The Supreme Court has ordered the Sunni Wakf Board to produce documents to attest to its claim that Shah Jahan had declared that the Taj Mahal as a property of the board.

“Who in India will believe it belongs to the Wakf board? These kinds of issues must not waste the time of the Supreme Court.”

The CJI asked the board:

“How did he (Shah Jahan) sign waqf nama? He was in jail and used to view the monument while in custody.”

The apex court bench of CJI Dipak Misra asked the Sunni Wakf Board to submit documents signed by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan to support its claim.

The court has given a week’s time to the board to produce the signatures of the Mughal emperor who died in 1666.  READ HERE

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Federal Court Denied Involvement of US Department of Justice in Trump’s Defamation Lawsuit

Background  The Plaintiff, E .Jean Carroll, published a book where she wrote that a businessman, Donald J Trump had raped her in a dressing room,...

SC Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

Lawsuit Filed Against Uber for Discriminatory “Star Rating System”

The lawsuit was bought in the District Court of North California against Uber. The plaintiff claims class-action status on behalf of all the minority...

Bombay High Court To Hear Plea Seeking Removal of Chairperson of National Commission for Women

A Writ Petition had been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the conduct of the Chairperson of the National Commission for Women. The...

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -