Is the Taj Mahal owned by the Waqf Board?

The Taj Mahal, one of India’s most famous monuments, is known worldwide as a symbol of love and truly breathtaking architecture. But in recent years, a debate has emerged over its true ownership. What seems like a simple question has led to legal disputes, political controversies, and religious claims. The issue began when the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board claimed ownership of the monument, leading to an ongoing legal battle over whether it belongs to the Waqf Board or remains under the Indian government’s control.
The Waqf Board’s claim
It all started in 1998 when a businessman from Firozabad, Irfan Bedar, approached the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board with a request to declare the Taj Mahal a Waqf property. According to India Today Hindi, Bedar asked the Board to grant him the responsibility of maintaining the monument, arguing that it should fall under their control due to its historical and religious significance.

This initial request eventually led the Waqf Board to issue a notice to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which manages the Taj Mahal. However, instead of an immediate resolution, this issue sparked a years-long legal battle.
Supreme Court intervention
In 2004, Bedar turned to the Allahabad High Court, asking for legal support in his demand to become the caretaker of the Taj Mahal. The High Court's response was to advise the Waqf Board to take the matter seriously, and in 2005, the Board decided to register the Taj Mahal as a Waqf property. This decision, however, was far from being accepted by the ASI, which immediately appealed to the Supreme Court.
The legal battle escalated when the Supreme Court intervened, demanding that the Waqf Board provide evidence of ownership. As reported by India Today Hindi, the Supreme Court wanted proof that the Taj Mahal had indeed been declared a Waqf property by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan himself. In 2010, the court stayed the decision of the Waqf Board and ordered a thorough investigation.
The political angle: Who has the right?
Amidst the legal drama, the political dimension of the case also gained prominence. According to the India Today report, in 2014, Azam Khan, a prominent leader from the Samajwadi Party and the then Minister for Urban Development in Uttar Pradesh, voiced his opinion that the Taj Mahal should be officially declared the property of the Waqf Board. He argued that the monument should be managed by the Waqf Board because it contained the tombs of Shah Jahan and Mumtaz Mahal. Khan’s statement stirred a significant amount of controversy, with critics questioning his motives and opponents arguing that the Taj Mahal was a national heritage site and not religious property.

This political stance raised further debates about whether the Taj Mahal, as an iconic heritage structure, should fall under any single religious group's jurisdiction. In fact, the controversy didn’t just stop there. In the same year, during a discussion reported by India Today, Shia leaders also entered the debate, claiming that since Mumtaz Mahal was a Shia Muslim, the Taj Mahal had a special connection to Shia traditions. As one Shia leader put it, “Mumtaz was a Shia, whose real name was Arjuman Bano. The architecture of the Taj is proof of its Shia connection.”
The Supreme Court’s stance: No documents, no claim!
The case reached a critical point in April 2018 when the Supreme Court once again weighed in on the matter. The Court questioned the Waqf Board’s claim, stating that they had no substantial proof to support their ownership of the Taj Mahal. As per NDTV, the Supreme Court asked the Waqf Board to provide the original documents signed by Shah Jahan himself to prove that he had declared the Taj Mahal a Waqf property.
During the hearing, the then Chief Justice of India, Deepak Mishra, famously remarked, “Who in India will accept that the Taj Mahal belongs to the Waqf Board?” He continued, “When was it given to you? It was in the possession of the East India Company for more than 250 years. After that, it went to the central government. ASI has been in charge of its management, and it had the right to administer it.”
The Waqf Board’s legal team, led by senior advocate VV Giri, argued that the Taj Mahal was Waqf property because it contained the graves of two prominent Muslims. However, the Court stood firm, asking for clear evidence to support this claim.

Waqf Board withdraws its claim
By mid-2018, the Supreme Court’s questioning had made it clear that the Waqf Board’s claim would not be easily accepted without the necessary documentation. As per NDTV, the Waqf Board was unable to produce the required proof, and during the following hearing, the Board’s representatives conceded that the Taj Mahal could not be officially claimed as Waqf property. Instead, they stated that the Taj Mahal “belongs to Allah,” and it should only be managed by the Waqf Board for practical purposes.
The Waqf Board’s legal counsel clarified, “We don't have the documents to show Taj Mahal is Waqf property. But by virtue of continuous use, it is a Waqf property, and the Sunni Waqf board is entitled to manage the Taj Mahal.” This statement suggested that the Board was more interested in administrative control rather than ownership.
Despite this, the ASI opposed the Board’s suggestion, warning that conceding any form of ownership could set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to other claims on significant monuments like the Red Fort and Fatehpur Sikri.
In the end, the Supreme Court dismissed the Waqf Board’s claim due to a lack of historical evidence. This case highlighted the complexities of historical ownership claims and the importance of maintaining heritage monuments as part of the country’s shared cultural legacy rather than linking them to any particular group.
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscored that heritage sites like the Taj Mahal belong to the nation, not any specific religious group. It reinforced the idea that such monuments must be preserved as collective treasures of India's diverse cultural history.
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscored that heritage sites like the Taj Mahal belong to the nation, not any specific religious group. It reinforced the idea that such monuments must be preserved as collective treasures of India's diverse cultural history.
The verdict also sent a strong message that without credible historical documentation, no individual or group can stake claim to a national monument. As India continues to preserve its architectural gems, the case serves as a reminder that history should be protected from political or religious appropriation and kept in public trust for future generations.