Gujarat High Court: While considering a public interest litigation seeking directions to place in the public domain the scientific archaeological survey report of the Somnath Temple site, the Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal, C.J.* and D.N. Ray, J., dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of ₹2 lakhs holding that the petitioner had abused the process of the Court by filing a PIL based on misleading, incomplete and distorted facts.
Facts and Background
The petitioner, a resident of Maharashtra, filed the PIL claiming to be a scholar and founder member of an organisation while also stating that he was associated with an NGO. However, the petition did not disclose his occupation or profession, nor was any material produced to establish his association with the NGO or its authorisation to institute the proceedings.
The petitioner sought directions to the Union of India and other authorities to place in the public domain the 32-page scientific archaeological survey report, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey, structural findings, photographs, videography and related records allegedly prepared by IIT Gandhinagar and the Archaeological Survey of India concerning the Somnath Temple site. He also sought directions for preservation of archaeological records and access to such material for academic research.
The petition disclosed that the factual assertions were derived primarily from newspaper reports and social media posts, and that a representation had been submitted to the Ministry of Culture before approaching the Court.
Analysis and Decision
The principal issue before the Court was whether a public interest litigation founded on unverified media reports and containing incorrect and misleading factual assertions could be entertained.
At the outset, the Court found serious deficiencies in the petitioner’s credentials. It observed that there was no disclosure regarding his occupation or means of livelihood, although he claimed to be bearing the litigation expenses himself. His alleged association with an NGO was unsupported by any material, and the petition had not been filed in a representative capacity on behalf of that organisation.
The Court further noted that several foundational assertions in the petition were demonstrably incorrect, including the statement that the Shree Somnath Trust functioned under a statutory enactment known as the “Shree Somnath Trust Act, 1955”. The State categorically informed the Court that no such enactment existed.
The Court emphasised that the petitioner’s own pleadings disclosed that the factual foundation of the PIL rested upon newspaper articles and information circulating on social media. The petitioner had neither verified those facts from authentic records nor established that the statements were based on his personal knowledge or independent research.
The Court also found that even the supporting affidavit failed to properly disclose the source of information or knowledge regarding the factual assertions contained in the petition.
Holding that the petition was founded on incorrect, misleading and distorted facts, the Court observed that entertaining such petitions would undermine the very object of the public interest jurisdiction evolved by the Supreme Court. It remarked that unscrupulous litigants cannot be permitted to misuse PIL proceedings for ulterior motives or to secure undue publicity.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the public interest litigation with exemplary costs of ₹ 2 lakhs, directing the petitioner to deposit the amount with the Registrar General of the High Court within three weeks for transmission to the High Court Legal Services Committee. It further directed that, in the event of default, the amount would be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
[Vilas Tukaram Kharat v. Union of India, W.P. (PIL) No. 25 of 2026, decided on 25-6-2026]
*Judgment pronounced by: Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mren Priyadarshi and Ratna Vora, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Gursharan H. Virk, Government Pleader, Dharitri Pancholi, AGP, Prutha Bhavsar, Devanshee N. Kariel, Advocates.
