According to the petitioners, an inspection of the Taj Mahal is necessary to document architectural and structural features which, they claim, support their case.
They argue that such evidence cannot effectively be proved through oral testimony alone.
Since the Taj Mahal is a protected monument under the control of the ASI, they contend that they cannot independently access or photograph the portions they seek to rely upon before the trial court.
It was for this reason that the petitioners moved an application in 2017 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect, photograph and videograph the Taj Mahal and submit a report before the trial court.
The trial court, however, rejected the application in July 2019, holding that there was no justification for appointing a commissioner.
According to the petitioners, an inspection of the Taj Mahal is necessary to document architectural and structural features which, they claim, support their case.
They argue that such evidence cannot effectively be proved through oral testimony alone. Since the Taj Mahal is a protected monument under the control of the ASI, they contend that they cannot independently access or photograph the portions they seek to rely upon before the trial court.
It was for this reason that the petitioners moved an application in 2017 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect, photograph and videograph the Taj Mahal and submit a report before the trial court.
The trial court, however, rejected the application in July 2019, holding that there was no justification for appointing a commissioner. The Additional District Judge at Agra affirmed that decision on April 4, 2026.
