Introduction:

The Gujarat High Court, in Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat v. Union of India & Others [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 2010], dismissed a review application challenging its earlier decision refusing to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking disclosure of archaeological and scientific records relating to the Somnath Temple site. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray reiterated that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and cannot be used as a means to reopen or reargue a matter already decided on merits.

The original PIL sought directions to the Union of India, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), and other authorities to place in the public domain various records concerning the Somnath Temple site, including archaeological survey reports, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey reports, maps, structural analyses, photographs, videography, and documents allegedly prepared by IIT Gandhinagar and the ASI. The petitioner also sought preservation of all archaeological and scientific material connected with the temple and its surrounding area and requested that such records be made accessible for academic and historical research.

In June 2026, the High Court dismissed the PIL with costs of ₹2 lakh, observing that the petition was primarily founded on unverified news reports and social media material rather than authentic records or personal knowledge. Dissatisfied with that decision, the petitioner filed a review petition seeking recall of the earlier judgment.

Arguments of the Parties:

The review applicant sought reconsideration of the judgment dismissing the PIL and requested that the Court revisit its conclusions. At the hearing, an adjournment was sought on the ground that the Senior Counsel engaged to argue the review petition was unavailable due to illness. It was submitted that the matter should be deferred until the Senior Counsel could appear.

The petitioner maintained that the Court should reconsider its earlier findings and review the dismissal of the PIL concerning disclosure of archaeological and scientific records relating to the Somnath Temple site.

The respondents opposed the review petition, contending that no valid ground for review had been made out. They argued that the review application sought to introduce fresh factual assertions and grounds which had not formed part of the original writ proceedings. Such an exercise, according to the respondents, amounted to an attempt to reopen the entire case rather than pointing out any apparent error on the face of the record.

Court’s Judgment:

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the review application, holding that it disclosed no ground warranting exercise of the Court’s review jurisdiction.

The Bench first noted that although an adjournment was sought because the Senior Counsel was unavailable, Advocate Ratna Vora, who had appeared in the original proceedings and was present before the Court, declined to argue the review petition. The Court expressed its disapproval of this course of action and refused to postpone the matter merely because the Senior Counsel was indisposed.

More importantly, the Court examined the contents of the review application and found that it contained several fresh averments that were never pleaded in the original writ petition. The Bench observed that a review proceeding cannot be converted into an opportunity to introduce new facts, new pleadings, or new grounds that could have been urged earlier.

Reiterating the settled principles governing review jurisdiction, the Court held that the power of review is confined to correcting an apparent error on the face of the record and cannot be exercised to rehear or reconsider the entire case on merits. A review is not an appeal in disguise, nor can it be used to fill gaps in the original pleadings or improve upon arguments that were previously available.

The Court emphasised that permitting such fresh pleadings at the review stage would defeat the finality attached to judicial decisions and would amount to an impermissible rehearing of the matter. Since the petitioner sought to raise entirely new assertions instead of demonstrating any manifest error in the earlier judgment, the review petition was held to be legally untenable.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the review application. At the same time, the Bench granted the petitioner four weeks’ time to deposit the costs of ₹2 lakh that had been imposed while dismissing the original PIL. The Court further directed that if the amount was not deposited within the stipulated period, it would be recovered as arrears of land revenue in accordance with law.

The judgment reiterates the narrow scope of review jurisdiction under Indian law and reinforces the principle that review proceedings cannot be used to relitigate issues or introduce fresh material that was not part of the original proceedings. It also underscores that public interest litigations must be founded on credible and verifiable material rather than speculation, social media posts, or unverified news reports.