The recent dismissal of the plea by the Allahabad High Court seeking the constitution of a fact-finding committee to research on the "real history" behind Taj Mahal, is again a crusade in point. The petitioner had also sought a direction to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to open the sealed doors of over 20 rooms inside the Taj Mahal premises so that the alleged controversy pertaining to the "history of Taj Mahal" can be put to rest. However, the plea couldn’t see the light of the day, unlike the ‘Gyanvapi’ or the time-tested’Babri’ masjid case. The difference between them being that the Taj case was a Writ petition and the suitability of using the same to elicit facts is less of a draw in law than using a Suit in arriving at facts, and being the traditional device of Indian Courts in drawing evidence. So if tombs are to be unearthed, then it better be by way of a Suit, as laid down by precedence in Indian Courts, not that it essentially draws out skeletons from a closet, even if they are none, but at least because it stirs the imagination of the larger rhetoric of the prevailing public opinion. What is worrisome is that matters of religious fervour are being adjudicated liberally in Courts of law, where forensics ought to have been the rationale forward.

The question, therefore, that is now posed for our present popular understanding is whether the plaintiffs’ prayer for restoration of performance of rituals at principal seat of an Ancient Temple at the alleged area in the Gyanvapi mosque holds any water, and whether the Ld. Courts are competent to tread these holy waters keeping in mind that only recently did the troubled waters of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi, was put to rest. Is It a Watershed In The Constitutional Tirades Of Secularism or a Call For Judicial Ablution ?