Gujarat HC Dismisses Somnath Temple PIL With Rs 2 Lakh Cost, Calls Petitioner Unscrupulous

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a PIL seeking disclosure of an IIT Gandhinagar survey of Somnath Temple, imposing Rs 2 lakh exemplary costs for filing with misleading and distorted facts.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat, led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat, a Maharashtra resident, seeking disclosure of a scientific archaeological survey of the Somnath Temple site conducted by IIT Gandhinagar. The Bench found the petition riddled with incorrect, incomplete, misleading and distorted facts, and concluded that the petitioner had filed it with ulterior motives or to gain undue publicity. Exemplary costs of Rs 2,00,000 were imposed, payable within three weeks to the Registrar General of the High Court for transmission to the High Court Legal Services Committee. The judgment was delivered on 25 June 2026.

The Petition and What It Sought

Dr. Kharat, who holds a Ph.D. in Marathi Language from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Maharashtra University, described himself in the petition as a scholar and founder member of an unnamed organisation, and claimed association with an NGO called Sanatan Dhamm. He filed the PIL in his individual capacity, not as an authorised representative of the NGO.

The petition sought three broad directions. First, that respondents be directed to place in the public domain the 32-page scientific archaeological survey report, ground penetrating radar survey records, findings, maps, structural analysis, photographs, videography and all related documents prepared by IIT Gandhinagar and the Archaeological Department of India concerning the Somnath Temple site. Second, that respondents preserve and protect all archaeological records, scientific materials, structural findings and historical data relating to the site and adjoining area. Third, that respondents ensure archaeological and scientific material concerning monuments of national importance is preserved in accordance with law and made accessible for academic and historical research subject to lawful restrictions.

The petition named the Union of India, the Archaeological Survey of India (described as a Government of India organisation under the Ministry of Culture), and the Shree Somnath Trust among the respondents. Dr. Kharat stated that he had made a representation on 30 March 2026 before the Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Government of India, New Delhi. He acknowledged that the source of the facts pleaded in the petition was news clips from print media and social media.

Defects the Bench Identified

Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, writing the oral judgment for the Bench, identified several serious deficiencies in the petition.

On the petitioner's credentials, the Bench noted there was no disclosure of the petitioner's actual occupation, profession or means of livelihood. The NGO with which he claimed association was not supported by any material on record, and the petition was not filed as a representative action authorised by that NGO.

On a factual assertion about the Shree Somnath Trust, the petition described it as a statutory Trust declared by law known as the Shree Somnath Trust Act, 1955. The learned Government Pleader, Mr. G.H. Virk, appearing for the State respondents along with Ms. Devanshee N. Kariel and Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, submitted that no such enactment exists on any statute book. The Bench accepted this and found the assertion to be “absolutely false.”

The petition also claimed that the Trust includes the Prime Minister of India and higher Government officials as trustees and performs public ritual and administrative functions, while simultaneously asserting that it does not fall under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The Bench found this contention to be without any basis.

On the affidavit, the Bench found that the factual statements in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the petition were not properly sworn. The petitioner had not disclosed in the affidavit the source of his information or the basis of his knowledge. The Bench observed that since all information was drawn from news items in print media and social media, none of the statements could be verified by the petitioner as true to his personal knowledge or based on any authentic record or material researched by him.

The inability to ascertain whether the petitioner bore litigation costs himself — a factor sometimes relevant in PIL scrutiny — was also noted, given the complete absence of any disclosure about his occupation or profession.

Why the Bench Rejected the PIL Outright

The Bench held that a petition grounded entirely in media reports and social media posts, without any authentic record or personal knowledge, was sufficient to dismiss it outright. The petitioner, a resident of Maharashtra, had filed a PIL concerning a temple in Gujarat without establishing any connection to the subject matter beyond what he had read in the press.

The Bench found that entertaining such a petition would “cause damage to the sanctity of the benevolent cause of law of Public Interest Litigation evolved by the Apex Court.” It characterised the petitioner as an unscrupulous person who had filed the PIL with incorrect, incomplete, misleading and distorted facts, evidently with ulterior motives or to gain undue publicity.

The Bench invoked the Rules of the High Court to impose exemplary costs, treating the filing as a misuse of the court's process.

Outcome

The PIL was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs 2,00,000. The petitioner was directed to deposit the amount within three weeks from 25 June 2026 with the Registrar General of the High Court. The amount is to be transmitted to the High Court Legal Services Committee. The Bench further directed that if the petitioner fails to deposit the cost within the stipulated period, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

The petitioner was represented by Mr. Miren Priyadarshi and Ms. Ratna Vora. The Union of India was represented by Ms. Prutha Bhavsar for Mr. Ankit Shah. The State respondents were represented by Mr. Gursharan H. Virk, learned Government Pleader, with Ms. Devanshee N. Kariel and Ms. Dharitri Pancholi.