Gujarat HC Dismisses PIL On Somnath Temple Survey Fines Rs. 2 Lakh Cost

The Gujarat High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking disclosure of an IIT Gandhinagar archaeological survey report on the Somnath Temple site, imposing an exemplary cost of Rs. 2,00,000 on the petitioner after finding that the petition was built entirely on news clippings and social media posts and contained incorrect, misleading and distorted facts.

A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed the petition as a wholly misconceived Public Interest Litigation filed by Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat, a Maharashtra-based petitioner associated with an NGO called Sanatan Dhamm, who had sought directions to place in the public domain a scientific archaeological survey conducted by IIT Gandhinagar in relation to the Somnath Temple site.

The petition sought three broad reliefs: a direction to respondents to make public the 32-page scientific archaeological survey report, ground penetrating radar survey findings, maps, structural analysis, photographs, videography, and related documents prepared by IIT Gandhinagar and the Archaeological Survey of India; a direction to preserve and protect all archaeological records pertaining to the Somnath Temple and adjoining areas; and an order ensuring that archaeological material concerning monuments of national importance be made accessible for academic and historical research subject to lawful restrictions. The petitioner claimed to have made a representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Government of India on 30-03-2026 prior to filing the petition.

At the outset, the court took note of critical deficiencies in the petitioner's credentials and the pleadings. The petition did not disclose the petitioner's actual occupation or profession. The name of the NGO with which the petitioner claimed association was left blank in the petition, and no material was placed on record to establish the association. The petitioner had not filed the petition as an authorised representative of the NGO.

The court also noted that the petition contained a factually false assertion that the Shree Somnath Trust was a statutory trust declared by law under the Shree Somnath Trust Act, 1955. The learned Government Pleader, Mr. G.H. Virk, appearing for the State respondents, submitted categorically that no such enactment exists on any statute book. The court further noted that the claim that the Trust includes the Prime Minister of India and senior government officials as trustees and performs public functions, though not falling under Article 12 of the Constitution, was made without any basis.

Most critically, the court found that the entire factual foundation of the writ petition rested on news clips from the print media and social media. The court held that this was sufficient, by itself, to dismiss the petition outright, since none of the statements could be verified as being true to the petitioner's personal knowledge or based on any authentic record or material read or researched by him. The court additionally observed that the factual statements in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the petition were not even properly sworn to in the petitioner's affidavit with regard to the source or basis of the information.

The court concluded that the petition had been filed with incorrect, incomplete, misleading and distorted facts, and that entertaining it would cause damage to the sanctity of the benevolent cause of Public Interest Litigation as evolved by the Supreme Court. The court found that the petitioner was an unscrupulous person who had misused the process of the court evidently with ulterior motives or to gain undue publicity.

This petition thus, is found to have been filed with incorrect, misleading and distorted facts and being in the nature of Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained as it would cause damage to the sanctity of the benevolent cause of law of Public Interest Litigation evolved by the Apex Court.

The petition was dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs. 2,00,000 in accordance with the Rules of the High Court. The cost was directed to be deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar General of the High Court within three weeks, to be transmitted to the High Court Legal Services Committee. The court further directed that in the event of failure to deposit the cost within the stipulated time, the same would be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Miren Priyadarshi, Advocate; Ms. Ratna Vora, Advocate

For Respondents: Mr. Gursharan H. Virk, Learned Government Pleader with Ms. Devanshee N. Kariel, Advocate and Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, AGP, Ms. Prutha Bhavsar, Advocate for Mr. Ankit Shah

Case Title: Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat vs. The Union of India & Ors. | R/Writ Petition (PIL) No. 25 of 2026 |