If the Taj isn’t safe, nothing is

Whatever Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s personal views on the Mughal legacy, the Taj Mahal is India’s most beloved and globally recognisable monument. A symbol of love and architectural brilliance, it remains the top revenue generator amongst our 145 ticketed monuments, with a footfall of over 70 lakh visitors annually. What then, possessed the Supreme Court to reverse its order to protect the Taj?

Last month, a Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant modified its October 2024 order that had effectively barred fresh industrial activity in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) without the court’s approval. The revised order permits the processing of 410 pending applications from micro, small and medium enterprises seeking to establish industries within the 10,400 sq. km protected zone spanning Agra, Mathura and the adjoining districts of Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.

The applications, filed under the UP government, include leather and footwear units, handicraft and stone-processing industries, foundries, engineering enterprises, ceramics, agro-processing units, hotels and hospitals.

The state argued that these projects would rely on electricity and natural gas rather than coal or coke. While the court directed that each proposal be scrutinised by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), it nevertheless reversed a precautionary approach that had protected the Taj for decades.

Curiously, the bench gave the amicus curiae the final authority to decide when and why judicial intervention could be sought. Even if NEERI and CEC gave their approval, the amicus curiae could overrule their decision.

Neither did the court seek a comprehensive assessment of the region’s environmental carrying capacity or examine the long-pending ‘Vision Document’ for the TTZ. The central question was never simply whether new industries would burn cleaner fuel, but whether an already stressed ecosystem can survive additional industrialisation.

The Supreme Court obviously took this decision without doing any homework. The battle to save the Taj began in the 1970s, and gained momentum in 1984, when environmental activist-lawyer M.C. Mehta brought the problem to the attention of the highest court. Sulphur dioxide emissions, brick kilns and refinery pollution had already begun turning the white marble yellow and green, while fungal decay was destroying the tomb of Shah Jahan’s wife Mumtaz Mahal in the inner chamber.

Environmental evidence leaves little room for complacency. Duke University engineer Mike Bergin has documented how pollution and dust particles have given the Taj a brownish tint. Because these particles adhere to marble and are not water-soluble, cleaning them is difficult and risks damaging the surface. Although the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) periodically applies Fuller’s earth (Multani mitti), conservationists say this merely treats the symptoms.

The underlying causes remain unresolved. The Yamuna, whose health is inseparable from that of the monument, is filled with chemical waste from factories, raw sewage and heaps of garbage that sustain swarms of flies. The ASI has warned that the greenish stains appearing on the Taj are caused by the droppings of the goeldichironomous, an insect that breeds in the polluted river.

Agra has 90 nullahs that are purified by only four out of 25 functional sewage treatment plants. Untreated waste from 65 additional drains is dumped in the Yamuna. To make matters worse, receding water levels pose a serious threat to the foundation of the Taj.

The ASI reportedly earned Rs 90 crore in ticket sales over three years but spent only Rs 9.41 crore on conservation. What was the rest of the money used for?

A 2015 IIT study found that three per cent of the pollutants deposited on the Taj’s surface consist of black carbon caused by vehicular pollution; 30 per cent is brown carbon and the remainder is dust generated by the burning of trash, dung, crop residue and fossil fuels.

For Agra’s environmentalists, the Supreme Court’s decision is highly disturbing. Brij Khandelwal recalls that activists went on hunger strike in 1977, demanding the relocation of the Mathura refinery because of fears that sulphur dioxide emissions would damage the Taj. Today, the situation is much worse.

“The Taj is being buried under dust, smog and smoke from thousands of trucks, buses and heavy vehicles,” he says. “The Yamuna and its tributaries are drying up, lakes and ponds have disappeared. Under such fragile conditions, the environmental cost of permitting new industries must be examined scientifically.”

The numbers support his concern. In 1990, Agra had approximately two lakh registered vehicles. By mid-2026, that figure had crossed 16.9 lakh. More than 50,000 vehicles use the city’s expressways every day. Additional industrial activity, Khandelwal warns, will inevitably generate more traffic, construction and energy demand, offsetting any environmental gains achieved over decades of litigation.

Environmental activist Devashish Bhattacharya is equally appalled. He has filed a case demanding that Agra’s famous petha industry be relocated as most of its waste is dumped on the streets or in open drains with waste water making its way into the Yamuna.

Dr Mukul Pandya of Agra University points to another dimension of the crisis. Winter air quality frequently deteriorates to AQI levels between 250 and 300, with dense smog obscuring not only the Taj but several historic monuments. “The only way to combat this is by growing native trees and flowering shrubs,” he argues.

On 29 July, the Supreme Court further diluted the law in spirit, intent and practise when it permitted ex post facto clearances of projects if they are given statutory notification instead of an administrative order. Critics fear that retrospective validation of violations could become routine, weakening the long-established principle that environmental safeguards must precede development rather than follow it.

Environmentalists wonder how the highest court can run down those fighting to save the environment. Instead of recognising its constitutional role in protecting public resources and cultural heritage, statements like the Chief Justice’s derisive “show us a single project in this country where these alleged environmental activists say we welcome this project” portray environmental litigation as obstructionist.

The debate over the Taj cannot be separated from this regime’s desire to expunge and rewrite history. Important sections on the Mughal courts have disappeared from NCERT textbooks despite the dynasty’s contributions to India’s economy, agriculture, architecture, science and engineering.

The most dangerous vandalism comes from the Hindutva brigade. On 4 August, members of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha attempted to enter the Taj Mahal with kanwars to perform religious rituals. The Allahabad High Court went a step further and admitted a petition seeking an enquiry on whether the Taj Mahal was actually a Shiv temple. A needless controversy that will only aid the further deterioration of this seventh wonder of the world.

In 2019, the Supreme Court had warned the government that it must either restore the Taj, shut it down or demolish it. That extraordinary observation reflected the court’s frustration with official neglect and reaffirmed its role as the monument’s strongest institutional guardian.

The latest order raises a difficult question: has the court begun to retreat from that legacy?

The Taj Mahal has survived nearly four centuries of wars, invasions and political upheaval. Whether it survives the cumulative effects of pollution, ecological neglect and weakening legal protection will depend on decisions being taken today. If environmental safeguards can be diluted around India’s most celebrated monument, the future of countless other less visible natural and cultural treasures becomes even more uncertain.