Gujarat High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Archaeological Survey Of Somnath Temple; Imposes ₹2L Penalty On Petitioner
|Expressing deep displeasure over the misuse of the judicial process, the Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking the public disclosure of a scientific survey report on the Somnath Temple site.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the public disclosure of a scientific archaeological survey report on the Somnath Temple site, severely reprimanding the petitioner for misusing the judicial process through incorrect and distorted facts.
The Court heavily penalized the petitioner for relying entirely on unverified print and social media news clips while failing to disclose his actual profession or provide any authentic research.
Consequently, the Bench imposed an exemplary cost of ₹2,00,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be recovered as arrears of land revenue if he failed to deposit it within three weeks.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray said, "It is more than evident that the petitioner herein is an unscrupulous person who has filed the Public Interest litigation with incorrect, incomplete, misleading and distorted facts, evidently with ulterior motives, or to gain undue publicity. For this act of the petitioner in misusing the process of the Court, the present petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- as per the Rules of the High Court."
Advocate Miren Priyadarshi appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Government Pleader GH Virk appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The petitioner, associated with a non-governmental organization named Sanatan Dhamm, preferred a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court seeking directions against the Union of India and the Archaeological Survey of India to place a specific scientific archaeological survey report, ground-penetrating radar survey findings, maps, and structural analysis concerning the Somnath Temple site into the public domain.
The petitioner further prayed for the preservation and protection of all archaeological records and historical data relating to the said site to ensure accessibility for academic and historical research. The petitioner asserted that the litigation costs were borne entirely by himself and that the source of information for the pleadings was derived from print media news clips, and social media.
Contentions of the Parties
It was contended by the Petitioner that the Archaeological Survey of India was a Government of India organization under the Ministry of Culture performing public functions, including excavations and protection of monuments. It was further averred that the temple trust was a statutory trust declared by law under a specific statute and that its trustees included the Prime Minister of India and higher government officials. The petitioner argued that in the interest of history, archaeology, and national heritage, it was necessary to publish the scientific survey report conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar.
The Respondents opposed the maintainability of the petition and submitted that the assertion regarding the trust being established under the alleged enactment was absolutely false, as no such legislation existed on any statute book.
Observations and Findings of the Court
The High Court observed that there was a complete lack of disclosure regarding the actual occupation or profession of the petitioner to substantiate his livelihood or his financial capacity to bear the litigation expenses. It was noted that the petitioner failed to produce any material to show his authorized representation on behalf of the named non-governmental organization.
"The contentions made in the writ petition that all information disclosed therein are based on some news items, published in the print media as well as information on social media, are sufficient to dismiss the writ petition outrighlty, inasmuch as, none of the statements made in the writ petition can be verified by the petitioner being true to his personal knowledge or based on any authentic record or material read over or researched by him", the Court said.
It was further held that the affidavit filed by the petitioner was defective as the factual paragraphs were not properly sworn regarding the true source of information or knowledge.
The Court remarked that the petition was preferred with incorrect, misleading, and distorted facts, which caused severe damage to the sanctity of the benevolent jurisdiction of Public Interest Litigation evolved by the Apex Court.
Concluding that the petitioner was an unscrupulous litigant who had misused the process of law with ulterior motives or to gain undue publicity, the High Court dismissed the writ petition outright and imposed exemplary costs of two lakh rupees to be recovered as arrears of land revenue upon failure of timely deposit.
Cause Title: Dr Vilas Tukaram Kharat v. Union of India & Ors. [Neutral Citation:2026:GUJHC:38938-DB]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Miren Priyadarshi and Advocate Ratna Vora.
Respondents: Government Pleader GH Virk, Assistant Government Pleader Dharitri Pancholi and Advocate Prutha Bhavsar.